Law & Corporate Finance

Law and Corporate Finance
ELGAR FINANCIAL LAW

Series editor: Takis Tridimas, Queen Mary, University of London, UK
This important new series comprises of high quality monographs on a wide range
of topics in the field of financial law, hosting work by established authors of
international reputation, alongside younger and more emerging authors. The
series is synonymous with original thinking and new, challenging research. The
subjects under consideration range from financial services law, through securities
regulation, to banking law and from financial fraud, through legal aspects of
European Monetary Union and the single currency, to the legal workings of
international financial institutions.
Law and Corporate

Finance
Frank B. Cross and Robert A. Prentice

University of Texas at Austin, USA
ELGAR FINANCIAL LAW
Edward Elgar
Cheltenham, UK Northampton, MA, USA
Frank B. Cross and Robert A. Prentice, 2007

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a
retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical or photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the prior
permission of the publisher.
Published by
Edward Elgar Publishing Limited
Glensanda House
Montpellier Parade
Cheltenham
Glos GL50 1UA
UK
Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc.
William Pratt House
9 Dewey Court
Northampton
Massachusetts 01060
USA
A catalogue record for this book
is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloguing in Publication Data
Cross, Frank B.
Law and corporate finance/Frank B. Cross and Robert A. Prentice.
p. cm. (Elgar financial law)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
1. CorporationsFinanceLaw and legislationUnited States.
2. CorporationsFinanceLaw and legislation. I. Prentice,
Robert A., 1950 . II. Title.
KF1428.C76
2007
346.730664dc22
2006034556
ISBN 978 1 84720 107 2

Printed and bound in Great Britain by MPG Books Ltd, Bodmin, Cornwall
Contents
List of gures and tables
1
2
3
4
5
6
vii
The role of law in corporate nance

The economics of the law and corporate nance
Behavioral analysis of law and corporate nance
History of law and corporate nance
Empirical analysis of the law and corporate nance
Current controversies in law and corporate nance
1
28
70
110
152
190
223
Index
Figures and tables

FIGURES
2.1
2.2
Prisoners dilemma of investment

Investment decision with legal constraint
32
38
TABLES
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.9
5.10
5.11
5.12
5.13
5.14
5.15
Associations among legal foundational variables

Legal foundational variables and World Bank
nancial variables
Legal foundational variables and other nancial variables
Corporate law variables and World Bank nancial variables
Corporate law variables and other nancial variables
Securities law variables and World Bank nancial variables
Securities law variables and other nancial variables
Factor analysis communalities
Regression of groups of legal variables on stock markets
Regression of groups of legal variables and control
variables on stock markets
Regression of groups of legal variables and control variables
on stock markets in nations with weak securities laws
Regression of groups of legal variables with public securities
law enforcement and control variables on stock markets
variables on intermediate agency problem variables
variables on intermediate disclosure variables
Summary of statistically signicant associations
from multiple regressions
vii
167
168
169
171
171
172
173
175
177
179
181
182
184
185
186
To Indy and Kira
1. The role of the law in

corporate nance
This book examines the role of legal regulation in the growth and success
of corporations and other business rms. Many companies chafe at the
everyday operation of the law, which may seem to frustrate their business
plans. Many economists complain that excessive legal regulation and litigation is compromising our economys competitiveness. While individual
instances of unwise and inecient law doubtless abound, the legal system
governing business is vital to economic development, and many of those
legal demands to which many businesspersons object are in fact quite
benecial to the economic system. The book examines the theoretical and
empirical association of legal regulation and economic welfare, focusing on
the basic foundational law, corporate law and securities law. This chapter
provides the background for that discussion, reviewing the signicance of
the nancial system to our economy and the nature of legal regulation of
that nancial system.
The law and its requirements pervade contemporary society. While the
scope of the term law is not perfectly unambiguous, we use the commonplace understanding of the term. The law represents the rules created
and enforced by a nations governmental authority. The law implies the use
of this government authority and power to impose and enforce certain
rules. By its nature, this is a constraint on the purely voluntary transactions
of a laissez faire market. The legal restrictions placed on the rm are
inevitably controversial in a fundamentally capitalist society.
The requirements of the law are of substantial importance to business
enterprises. The law regulates the behavior of business in countless ways,
ranging from employment law requirements, to environmental law
requirements, to antitrust rules, and so on. As this chapter will explore in
more detail presently, it is important to remember that the law not only
constrains and regulates, it also enables. Nothing is more important to
modern business than property law,1 which ensures investors and enterprises that they will be able to exploit, retain and enjoy the fruits of their
labors, and contract law, which ensures that they will have a remedy if the
entities that they buy from and sell to every day fail to live up to their
promises.
1
Law and corporate nance
Central to this book are two more specialized bodies of lawcorporate

law and securities law. In America corporate law is primarily state law. It
governs, among other matters, the internal structure of corporate enterprises themselves, dictating how corporate ocers and directors must deal
with their shareholders and govern the corporation. In the securities law
eld, there is state, federal and international law, but that emanating from
the federal Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) is most important.
Generally speaking, securities law not only regulates the major players in
the securities industry (brokers, dealers, investment advisers, mutual funds,
stock exchanges, and so on), it also regulates transactions in securities
issued by business. Over time federal securities statutes and SEC rules
regarding mandated corporate disclosure, fraud prevention, and, more
recently, corporate governance have imposed a heavy burden upon
American companies and foreign companies who access American capital
markets. Being a public company fully exposed to SEC regulation requires
audit fees, registration fees, directors and ocers insurance premiums and
other costs that have averaged roughly US$2.5 million per year for public
companies (much more for the biggest companies, less for the smallest),
and those numbers are rising rapidly in light of the requirements of a recent
federal law, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that companies pay particular attention to their internal controls. Every company must consider
whether the benets that the enabling aspects of federal securities law allow
them to garner justify the added costs. This book will, in part, attempt to
make that calculus with a focus not on individual companies but on the
economy as a whole.
This examination is particularly timely, for the law of corporate governance and securities regulation has been quite prominent on the business
pages of recent newspapers. The multibillion dollar collapse of Enron produced considerable litigation against and liability for its ocers, directors
and advisers, both civil and criminal. Although Enron is the poster
child for an era of corporate fraud, the nancial scandals at WorldCom,
Global Crossing, Adelphia, Tyco, Rite-Aid, Lucent Technologies, Nortel,
HealthSouth and others indicate that problems have been more widespread
than a few bad apples at one Houston energy company. The fact that fully
10 percent of New York Stock Exchange (NYSE)-listed companies
materially restated previously published nancial statements between 1997
and 2002 sends the same signal.2 Accounting rms and investment banks
judged complicitous in the corporate scandals suered severe consequences. Perhaps the most prestigious accounting rm in the world, Arthur
Andersen, blinked out of existence in the wake of the Enron scandal.
Investment bank Citigroup paid US$2.65 billion to investors claims that it
helped disguise WorldComs accounting fraud and the Department of
Justice led criminal charges against Merrill Lynch for assisting Enron in
manipulating its nancial reports. Martha Stewart was convicted for
obstruction of justice associated with her alleged insider trading. The New
York Stock Exchanges chairman and chief executive ocer, Richard
Grasso, was charged with taking excessive remuneration for his position.
Richard Scrushy, CEO of HealthSouth, has been sued for blatantly making
up the numbers in nancial reports for that company. The CEO of Rite Aid
was sentenced to eight years in jail for his part in a long-standing securities
fraud. Enron executives have pled guilty or are on trial as the book is sent
to press.
The corporate scandals of the past decade illustrate the relevance of the
law to our market economy in corporate governance. Clearly, the law is not
a panacea, for it failed to prevent the scandals. Some suggest that the law is
even counterproductive, creating more economic harm than it forestalls by,
for example, leading investors to assume that the law will protect them from
fraud, causing them to fail to be fully vigilant in making investment decisions. Of course, the frequency and severity of such dishonest corporate
behavior might have been far greater in the absence of such laws. Finding
proof of such counterfactuals (what would have happened in the absence
of the law) is impossible, but the net economic eect of corporate and securities law can be analyzed and measured to some extent.
LAW, FINANCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC

GROWTH
The basic rationale for any law is typically grounded in notions of justice
and fairness, and the law historically has reected a sense of corrective
justice. The law may enforce contracts among parties simply because it is
unfair or unjust for one party to guarantee some action, thereby induce
some favor from another party, and then renege on its own promise.
Similarly, the branch of law known as torts operates to correct behavior
that is regarded by society as unjust, such as the theft of property or the use
of physical violence against anothers person. The law of both contracts
and torts recognizes exemptions to these general rules, though, when justice
so dictates, for example, the right to use physical force in self-defense. The
law reects other values as well, such as the classic liberal value of individual freedom of choice.
While the law at least seems to be grounded in notions of fairness, these
questions are not the central concern of this book. We are concerned with
the role of the law in advancing the economic wellbeing of a society, with
its associated benets. Some argue that this is the true essence both of the
law and of fairness itself. Louis Kaplow and Steven Shavell of Harvard Law
School have argued prominently and at length that the general welfare
and not questions of distributional fairness provide the philosophical
justication for the law.3 This is a well-ventilated philosophical debate that
is beyond the scope of our book. Instead, we simply analyze the extent to
which the law advances the general welfare of a society by facilitating
economic growth, which is surely of some value even if it is not the only
relevant value.
Some might challenge the value of national economic development,
arguing that distributional fairness (whether as corrective justice or egalitarian distribution) should trump overall societal economic wellbeing. The
two objectives are not instrinsically in conict, though. Most would prefer
a fairly distributed large economic pie to a fairly distributed small economic
pie. Others might argue that greater material wellbeing has no intrinsic
philosophical value and may not even enhance utilitarian goals such as
human happiness.4 Those who make this argument, though, are typically
those who enjoy a world of substantial material wellbeing. Those suering
the conditions of poverty seldom demean the value of greater material
wealth. Moreover, there is considerable evidence that, in general, greater
material wellbeing does have a payo in human happiness.5 In any event, it
seems clear that people generally place value on their material welfare, so
this is our primary concern when analyzing the impact of law, especially
corporate law and securities law, upon the economy.
Although economists commonly emphasize the eciency value of
private ordering in advancing societys welfare, they have increasingly
emphasized the role of the law in creating societal wealth. For example,
Douglass North helped create the New Institutional Economics and won
a Nobel Prize for his historical investigation of the importance of legal
institutions in promoting economic growth.6 He declared that the
eectiveness of enforcement of property rights and contracts is . . . the
single most crucial determinant of economic performance . . .7 This economic theory is centrally grounded in analysis of transaction costs, which
this book will discuss extensively. The availability of reasonably reliable
enforcement of appropriate legal rights, by a government with power and
economies of scale, is of considerable benet for enhancing economic
development. This economic analysis is now widely, if not universally,
accepted. The law can serve to facilitate capitalism, which in turn facilitates
economic growth.
One crucial aspect of capitalisms facilitation of economic growth is found
in the ability of individuals to invest their resources productively, proting
the individuals while simultaneously beneting others by creating employment opportunities and societal wealth. Companies need cash or other
nancial resources in order to grow, to purchase new production equipment

and raw materials or hire workers. New companies, without prots to reinvest, have a particular need for this outside source of nancing. Well developed markets help ensure the ecient allocation of nancing. They direct
resources to uses where the return is greatest and permit greater specialization. They also facilitate the diversication of investment and consequent
reduction of investor risk. Additionally, nancial markets contribute to the
development of innovations and new technologies.
Bank lending is one possible source of outside cash for companies
needing investment resources. Another common source is equity markets,
with individuals or organizations buying stock in the companies. The two
systems of nancing are very dierent, with banks receiving more assurance of repayment with interest while equity investors take an ownership
interest, with its associated greater level of risk and reward. While the two
sources of nance should be complementary and mutually reinforcing,
dierent nations have dierent patterns of reliance on bank vs equity
investment and dierent degrees of participation in equity markets. The
value of stock market nancing was disputed for some time, when East
Asian countries success was fueled by bank lending and cross-ownership
arrangements for investment, without much in the way of freely traded
national equity markets. Some even suggested that the developed equity
markets of countries such as the United States could be counterproductive,
by creating demands for short-term performance at the expense of long-run
economic success. Time has not been supportive of these theories, though,
and empirical research generally bears out the importance of developed
and free equity markets, although the incentive for short-term focus by
American companies remains a concern.
Considerable research indicates that greater national nancial development produces greater national economic welfare. Various scales are available for measuring nancial development and its economic eect, and
studies have used dierent measures but fairly consistently found a
signicant positive association. Much of this research has compared
dierent countries. A 1993 study by Robert King and Ross Levine considered the development of 80 countries over a 30-year period in the second
half of the twentieth century. Their research found that certain measures
of countries general nancial development were closely associated with the
subsequent economic growth rates of those countries.8
A subsequent study by Levine and Zervos went further and investigated
the eects of factors such as stock market liquidity, size, volatility and integration with world capital markets.9 They used the measures for 47 countries to examine the eect of markets on economic growth, productivity
and other factors, after controlling for other political and economic factors.
They found that stock market liquidity and development of the banking
system were signicantly associated with contemporaneous and future
rates of economic growth, productivity growth and capital accumulation.
Other measures, such as market volatility, showed no countervailing negative eect on economic growth.
The World Bank and other organizations have also investigated the
importance of nancial markets for social welfare, using other methods. A
study examined rm-level data in 30 countries to test the number of rms
with high growth rates that could be attributed to the availability of longterm nancing. The proportion of successful companies was higher in
countries with a more liquid stock market (and better legal systems).10
Another study looked at the size of a countrys credit and equity markets
relative to its overall GDP and its allocation of capital.11 Ecient capital
allocation was signicantly correlated with more developed nancial
sectors. Countries with relatively advanced nancial systems better channeled investment to growing industries and away from declining industries.
Other research found that the government opening up nancial markets in
emerging nations was associated with signicant increases in real economic
growth.12 There is substantial empirical support for the intuitively obvious
claim that better developed nancial markets providing capital to business
are associated with greater economic growth.
While the association between a nations nancial development and its
economic growth is strong, some have questioned the direction of the
causality. They note that nancial development may just be a leading indicator of economic growth, rather than its underlying cause.13 While this is
possible, research has sought to establish directionality by considering legal
origins and other instrumental variables to demonstrate that certain legal
rules are associated with nancial development, which in turn translates
into substantial economic growth.14
The directional causality is further conrmed by historical research. The
earliest decades of the United States saw remarkable growth, both in the
general economy and in the nancial markets. The nancial development
meant that capital from Europe owed into the United States, providing
entrepreneurs and more established businesses with access to nancing.
When this history was subjected to statistical testing, the results clearly indicated that the nancial development was a contributing cause to the nations
great economic growth of the time.15 Studies of the historical evidence from
other countries further conrm the association, nding that nancial development was a causal determinant of the industrial development of the
United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Sweden and Norway.16 Other historical analyses ascribe the eighteenth-century success of Scotland and
Belgium to the remarkable eciency of their capital markets at the time. The
linkage between nancial markets and economic growth has been demonstrated theoretically and empirically. Consequently, strategies for enhancing
nancial markets have become an important part of plans to further economic growth for the benet of the society as a whole.
Much of the research in this area compares countries with dierent
nancial markets, but some research examines nancial development
within particular countries. One study found that the better a countrys
level of nancial development, the more rapid was the growth of those
industries that were typically dependent on external nancing.17 Financial
markets are linked, to some degree, with corporate governance. The quality
of corporate governance among a nations companies contributes to their
economic success. Some empirical research found that European companies with better corporate governance had better earnings-based performance ratios than did those with poorer governance.18 A study in Russia
found a strong correlation between corporate governance quality and rm
valuation.19 A broader McKinsey study found that OECD-based companies with better corporate governance had a higher valuation by 10 percent
or more.20 It is well-established that thriving nancial markets contribute
to national economic success and that quality corporate governance contributes to thriving nancial markets. The key policy question involves the
degree to which the law can facilitate quality corporate governance and
nancial markets.
Today nancial markets in the United States operate subject to extensive legal regulation and control. The connection between some measure
of legal protection and development of nancial systems is increasingly
recognized. The legal protection of property rights enables nancial development, even in the absence of external sources of nance.21 Basic legal
protection of property and contract enforcement facilitates the use of more
external nance. Laws governing corporations and securities transactions
can sometimes do likewise. These eects are a primary focus of this book.
Before analyzing the possible association of such categories of law with
nancial development and economic growth, it is important to summarize
the nature of the basic, corporate and securities laws that govern American
rms.
THE STRUCTURAL LAW OF THE FIRM AND THE

SECURITIES MARKETS
As discussed above, American rms are subject to a plethora of laws of all
types. Our focus is on laws that relate directly to equity investment. Bank
lending of course is another source of investment capital that can substitute
for equity investment, albeit sometimes with less eciency. Consequently,

we will consider the role of banks at only a secondary level. Our primary
concern is the legal regulation of business enterprises and of equity markets.
The role of law and its eect on the rm can be analyzed at three distinct
levels, which have developed chronologically. At the most basic level is the
simple existence of some sort of legal system. This involves the existence of
some adjudicatory authority, such as courts, who apply some basic garden
variety law, such as that of property, contract and tort. The second level is
the more complex law of corporations (or other forms of business enterprise). Corporate law establishes the authority for incorporated entities and
typically provides regulatory rules for their operation. The third level is that
known as securities law. While corporate law generally governs the relationship between the corporation and its existing shareholders, securities
law, at least an important branch of it, goes further and creates additional
rules for the sale of securities to outsiders. These corporate and securities
laws overlap in various ways but also supplement one another in their coverage and demands. They seldom conict, though when they do the federal
statutory provisions (generally securities law) generally take precedence
under our Constitution. This became particularly salient recently when
some provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 federalized aspects of
corporate governance that had previously been largely within the bailiwick
of the states.
Legal rules may be separated between categories of the empowering
and the restrictive. While this distinction is simplistic, it provides a useful
framework for analyzing particular rules. Empowering legal rules are those
that facilitate voluntary private ordering and wealth creation. Thus, the
recognition of legal rights in private property provides some assurances
that better enable individuals to use that property productively and create
wealth and later transfer rights in the property. Such laws are not empowering for the property thief, but they empower property owners. Similarly,
the law of contracts can be considered empowering, insofar as its assurances of government enforcement facilitate additional voluntary transactions among individuals. The basic law also contains restrictive rules,
however. Restrictive rules seem to interfere with the voluntary private
ordering of transactions. A restrictive rule will prevent certain types of
transactions, such as contracts made by minors or those otherwise considered incapable of binding themselves. The common law of fraud is a restrictive rule that rejects enforcement of some privately negotiated agreements.
While economists are generally skeptical of restrictive rules, it is possible
that they actually empower private transactions and thereby facilitate economic growth. A key question this book will address is whether securities
fraud rules ultimately diminish economic growth by restricting freedom of
contract between sellers of securities and investors, or actually encourage

economic growth by encouraging investors to play the game because they
are condent it is a fair one. In some circumstances, even restrictive rules
may be empowering. Ulysses restrictively lashed himself to the mast in
order to empower himself to safely hear the Sirens sing. Financially, rms
may accept restrictions on their freedom in order to access the benets that
those restrictions bring in the market.
Aliated with the debate between empowering and restrictive legal rules
are disputes over the source of law. Within the English tradition, the basic
law is judge-made common law, developed on a case-by-case basis, using
past decisions as guiding precedents to be adapted to particular case facts.
Most of the relevant corporate and securities law, by contrast, is legislative
in origin. Some economists are more skeptical of such statutory rules,
believing that the case-by-case development of common law is likely to be
more ecient and enable more individual choice, while legislative creations
are more likely the product of rent-seeking interest groups. This belief has
found some empirical support in research comparing nations that use the
common law with nations from the civil law tradition, where all law is of
legislative origin.22 Nations relying upon the common law tend to have
greater economic success. The distinction made in this research is a questionable one, though, because the practical dierence between the application of common and civil law is not so great as often portrayed.
Although the American law of securities fraud has its genesis in statutes,
those statutes are largely patterned after the common law of fraud and the
details of that law are almost entirely developed by judges, in the fashion
of the common law. Nevertheless, there remains a signicant academic
dispute over the wisdom of the relative apportionment of lawmaking
authority between the judiciary, the legislature and executive branch
administrators who may establish rules interpreting legislation. Judgemade law is often considered to be empowering and relatively ecient, in
contrast to the more restrictive rules found in statutes. On the other hand,
the judges who make common law typically do not view eciency as an
important value to advance.23 This dispute, like the question of restrictive
legal rules, will be a recurring theme in the book.
Still another related issue is the level of government applying the law. The
basic law and corporation law are for the most part state law, while securities law is largely federal, New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzers recent
activism notwithstanding. Some economists tend to favor state laws as
more ecient. Laws at the state level provide some additional choice for
rms, who may select the states whose laws they prefer. This distinction may
also be exaggerated. On the one hand, the globalization of business enables
some choice between national rules, and on the other the ability to choose
10
among states is limited somewhat by the extraterritorial application of

those rules. Conicting state laws may also interfere with the ecient operation of a national economic market, as evidenced by the conservative
assault on state product liability laws, and their case for national tort
reform. More centrally, the creation of some overriding universal laws,
which seem to limit choice, may be ecient for reasons discussed further in
Chapter 2. Before entering into the contested disputes over the substance
of the law and the manner of its implementation, it is important to address
in somewhat more detail the fundamental structure of the basic, corporate
and securities laws of this country.
Basic Law
The American basic law has a lineage of centuries and English common law
dates back as far as 1066. The central elements of this traditional English
common law are those of property, contract, and tort. These legal rules
developed as empowering structures that liberalized the feudal system of
the time and provided individual rights against even the King. Other
nations, even those that do not have common law, have a very similar structure of basic legal rules. Civil law nations rely on a statutory code, not caseby-case judicial evolution of the law. The civil law codes also create systems
of property, contract and tort law and, in practice, permit considerable
judicial implementing discretion, as in the common law. The basic law
creates or at least recognizes certain interests in property as legal rights
which the government will protect. It recognizes certain negotiated transactions as contracts which the government will enforce.
The basic background law is procedural as well as substantive and the
procedures are arguably as important as the substance of the law. A legal
system requires dened decisionmakers, such as judges, the structural
power to enforce the decisions of those adjudicators, and some sort of procedure for the adjudication. These structures and procedures are essential
to give eect to the substantive requirements of the law. Without them, the
substantive rules are just words. The Soviet Constitution, for example,
explicitly granted many rights that were unavailable in practice, because the
courts did not enforce them against the government.
It is not enough for a nation to have appropriate substantive legal
requirements; it must also possess institutions such as a judicial system
that can eectively implement those requirements. Legal systems may
fail for many reasons. If the courts are not independent, they will do the
self-interested bidding of their master (usually the executive branch) and
fail to apply the law in any reasonably objective manner. If the courts are
corrupt and can be bribed, they cannot be counted on to enforce the legal
11
rules and provide essentially no law to society. If the courts are starved for
resources, they may be unable to resolve legal disputes, no matter how wellintentioned the judges are. In India, for example, the judicial system is enormously backlogged. There is a clear correlation between limits on Indias
national wealth and the time required for its judicial system to enforce a
judgment.24 One-third of the pending Indian cases began over ten years
earlier; one famous dispute among neighbors took 39 years to resolve and
outsurvived both the parties. If it is inordinately costly for a party to invoke
legal protections, their value will be correspondingly reduced. Creating a
law or even a legal system does not guarantee its eective functioning.
While numerous things may go wrong with the operation of the law, the
legal system functions well in many nations. No national system is awless
but many legal structures operate successfully, given the inherent limits of
humans and institutions. Those who enter contracts, in developed nations
at least, have a reasonable expectation that they can eectively exercise their
legal rights should the contract be breached. Numerous property, contract,
and tort cases are led and typically promptly resolved. Although most
cases are voluntarily settled and not tried, this settlement takes place in
the shadow of the law and is therefore somewhat contingent upon the
function of the legal system. In countries such as the United States, the
functioning basic law is largely taken for granted.
The existence of the basic law is generally presumed, at least in our
modern society. All nation-states have some legal adjudicatory system to
resolve disputes. A true state of anarchy is unknown in the world today.
However, the basic law is not universal in scope and should not be presumed to be a necessary situation for all human dealings. Some transactions are by nature held to be illegal (for example, extortion or dealing in
illegal substances), and the law typically refuses to govern them. The world
of these transactions is often called the underground economy, which
operates alongside but outside the reach of the law. Every nation in the
world has a substantial underground economy, though its size varies considerably among countries.25 Moreover, some actors voluntarily place their
legal transactions outside the rule of the law. Robert Ellickson has demonstrated how cattle ranchers in California have chosen to resolve various disputes, such as trespassing cattle, by private norms rather than using the
available legal system.26 Lisa Bernstein has documented how diamond merchants have opted out of the legal system for resolution of their transactional disputes.27 Even parties that use the law in transactions may not use
it completely. Many agreements provide for some private dispute resolution
mechanism, such as arbitration, rather than courts. Many contracts are
intentionally left incomplete with open-ended terms that the parties intend
to work out voluntarily. Thus, the reach of the law is not universal even in
12
contemporary America. The most signicant fact, though, may be that the
vast majority of businesses voluntarily choose to subject themselves and
their transactions to legal governance, even when they have the choice of
opting out of the legal system.
The legal system appears to oer some value for private transactions.
Basic law is generally considered to be empowering in its recognition of
property rights and its enforcement of contracts, and such law is typically
embraced by even conservative economists. The fundamental law of torts
is generally restrictive in nature, but this nature is limited, to at least some
degree, by the parties ability to contract around the law of torts. This
ability to opt out of various tort law provisions is not universal and is the
source of some economic controversy regarding the tort/contract boundary. While there is an ongoing debate over the intrinsic eciency of
common law rules, the basic law, at least the common law heritage, is generally considered to be, on balance, ecient and empowering.
Corporate Law
Corporate law presents a somewhat more complex case. The basic law of
corporations is generally applauded by even conservative economists as
essentially empowering.28 The establishment of limited liability entities
such as corporations enables individuals to invest their resources productively, while simultaneously limiting the magnitude of the economic risk
faced by those individuals. A corporate investor places his or her invested
funds at risk but is generally free from liability with respect to his or her
other resources. The issuance of corporate shares also facilitates the free
and ecient transferability of ownership interests. This structure oers a
considerable benet, both to the individual and to society as a whole.
Corporate law is primarily created by states, not the federal government. It
is legislative in origin but provides a considerable judicial role, especially
when, as in Delaware (which is far and away the most important jurisdiction), it is largely implemented by the courts of equity rather than those of
law. However, some aspects of corporate law receive criticism as unduly
restrictive, and some economists have argued that companies be given
greater ability to choose among corporations laws or to contract around
their terms.
Corporate law is sometimes conceived as contractarian in nature, as a
deal between the individual and the government. There is no natural right
to the limited liability protections oered by corporate law. From a fairness
perspective, the law may be presented as the governments bestowal of the
benet of limited liability in exchange for an agreement to abide by certain
rules of corporate governance, laid down in the details of the corporate
13
code. The contractarian justication cannot truly explain the law of limited
liability, however. Some limited liability entities, such as limited partnerships, are governed by a law that is much less restrictive than the law of corporations. More centrally, the authorization of limited liability entities is
justied by the benets they provide society, not the private benets to
investors. Limited liability encourages investment, which encourages the
development of new production, with new employment opportunities and
overall economic growth to the benet of society. Consequently, corporate
laws requirements should be determined by their eect on the overall societal welfare not as some sort of payback in exchange for liability protection. Corporate law, thus, should stand or fall on its benets to society.
The essence of corporate law is the limited liability it provides and the
rules for corporate governance that it establishes. To obtain the benets of
limited liability for investors, corporations must abide by the rules of corporate governance law. Entities choose to incorporate within a particular
state and thereby become subject to that jurisdictions distinct corporation
law. In the United States, virtually all companies incorporate either in
Delaware or in their own home state. The incorporation process requires
the development of articles of incorporation (sometimes called the corporate charter or certicate), which is publicly available and becomes something like the constitution that governs the corporation. The law places
some requirements on the contents of these articles but allows considerable
discretion.
The key aspect of corporate law is the allocation of power in the
company among the shareholders, the board of directors, and corporate
ocers. Basic authority rests with the owner/shareholders, who can elect or
remove directors and make certain very fundamental decisions for the
company. The directors supervise the corporations business, though, and
shareholders are not authorized to tinker with the day-to-day managerial
decisions (except indirectly through changes on the board). The directors
hire the ocers who generally manage the company on a day-to-day basis.
Much of corporate law is directed at the potential agency problems that
arise between the shareholders who own the corporation and the directors
and ocers who manage it. The directors and ocers are the agents of the
shareholders and should operate it in their principals best interest. Like all
individuals, though, directors and ocers have their own self-interests that
they may advance at the expense of the shareholders interests. Corporate
law aims to restrain the self-interested actions of directors and ocers
through the imposition of certain duciary duties that are owed to shareholders. Unconstrained, directors and ocers might act selshly or foolishly. The duty of loyalty is to ensure that ocers do not enrich themselves
at the expense of shareholders, by self-dealing or usurping the business
14
opportunities of the corporation. The duty of care is to ensure that ocers

work to benet the company and its shareholders and are not lazy or cavalier. These duties are dened and to some degree limited by corporate law,
and doctrines such as the business judgment rule can limit the role of the
law in corporate governance. Nevertheless, the law of duciary duties is of
central importance in corporate law.
In some circumstances, the self-interest of ocers and directors may
directly interfere with ecient, voluntary transactions. Occasionally, large
investors seek to acquire entire companies and are willing to pay shareholders a substantial premium to obtain a controlling interest in those
companies. The target companys ocers, realizing that their lucrative
employment is at stake, may design an elaborate system of poison pill
defensive measures that functionally prevent their shareholders from
engaging in a voluntary transaction with the acquirer. Corporate law has
responded to such situations with legal rules subjecting the ocers antitakeover decisions to a higher than normal level of scrutiny, in order to
protect the interests of the shareholders from the desire of insiders to
entrench their positions at the expense of the shareholders.
Corporation law typically contains a series of specic requirements.
Although the law grants substantial discretion to the directors to decide to
pay or not pay dividends, it does insist that dividends not be paid when the
corporation will be rendered insolvent and creditors necessarily harmed.
To protect voting rights, corporation law has comprehensive rules governing the process and substance of shareholders voting for director candidates and major structural changes in the company. The law sets out
certain minimum requirements for the composition and processes of corporate boards. Companies must hold regular meetings of their shareholders for the election of directors and certain major corporate decisions.
Shareholders are given some legal right to inspect the corporate books and
records. If the shareholders are forced to divest their ownership interests,
such as in a merger, there is a right to a judicial appraisal of share value to
ensure that the shareholders receive fair compensation. Corporate laws also
provide for the end of the corporations life and dissolution. For the most
part, these specic rules also address potential agency problems and serve
to assure shareholders that they will be treated fairly, consonant with the
more general duciary requirements.
State corporations law is not the only authorization for business enterprises. States also authorize sole proprietorships, general partnerships and
limited liability entities such as limited partnerships, limited liability partnerships (LLPs) and limited liability companies (LLCs). These organization forms tend to have fewer legal restrictions than the corporation.
Partnerships are governed by a partnership agreement and the law allows
15
for more private ordering in this context. Corporate law, like partnership
law, provides a basic set of default rules that can be substantially altered by
the owners so long as third parties are not prejudiced. Partnership law provides somewhat more scope for entities to opt out of the legal rules, though.
For corporations, many of the default rules are also binding rules.
For example, in Delaware, individual directors may be exculpated from
personal liability for breach of the duty of care, though not for breach of
the duty of loyalty. Corporations also may buy insurance to protect their
directors and ocers from the risk of great personal liability. Companies
may issue preferred shares, which are largely ruled by their certicate of
designations, even when its terms conict with some aspects of the general
corporate law. Thus, corporate law, while it contains multiple restrictive
components, allows considerable space for private ordering of investment
contracts.
Securities Law
Securities law is even more controversial from the perspective of economists. Much of securities law, and certainly its more controversial elements,
is fundamentally restrictive. Securities law, for example, often prohibits corporate ocers from proting from their positions by trading in securities
based on their nonpublic information about their companies, a practice
known as insider trading, and securities law also creates liability for material misrepresentations of fact made by companies and their ocers and
directors. The restrictive provision of securities law relating to fraud claims
has been considered excessive by some and their potency was reduced by
legislative action in the 1990s, under the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA) and the subsequent Securities Litigation
Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (SLUSA). Perhaps ironically, these were
federal level legislative actions directed in part at judicial interpretations
regarded as excessively restrictive. The fundamental disclosure, fraud prevention and governance requirements of securities remained intact following PSLRA and SLUSA, however, notwithstanding signicant academic
and political criticism.
US federal securities law developed during the Great Depression, following the stock market crash of 1929, as is described further in Chapter 4
(though various state regulations of securities preceded this federal legislation). The initial major federal law in the area was the Securities Act of
1933. This law basically governs the initial issuance of securities, rather
than transactions in already-issued shares. To issue such shares, a company
must either le an extensive registration statement with the SEC and transmit to potential investors a prospectus, or must nd an exemption in the
16
statute. The 1933 Act and SEC rules promulgated pursuant to it have
detailed and extensive disclosure requirements, including provision of
audited nancial statements. The Securities Act also created a system of liability when the registration statement and prospectus contain materially
false information. Like most other federal securities laws, the 1933 Acts
provisions are enforced both by the government and by private parties. The
SEC can bring civil proceedings to punish violations. The Department of
Justice can le criminal charges against intentional violators. And often
investors who have suered economic injury as a consequence of violations
of the Act may bring civil damage actions against various wrongdoers.
Securities law was soon expanded with the passage of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, which created the Securities Exchange Commission.
While the Securities Act focused on the initial sale of securities to the
public, the Exchange Act focused on the secondary securities markets.
Realizing that companies sell new securities only infrequently and therefore
would seldom be required to le 1933 Act registration statements, Congress
provided that major public corporations would have to le periodic reports
to keep investors updated as to their nancial status. As those requirements
have evolved, they now require public companies to le annual, quarterly,
and periodic statements with the SEC as well as to transmit annual reports
to shareholders. Again, the 1934 Act and attendant SEC rules contain comprehensive and detailed disclosure requirements. One of the major controversies of securities law, and one that we shall address in this book, is
whether the disclosure requirements of the 1933 Securities Act and the
1934 Exchange Act are necessary. Many argue that issuers and investors
would voluntarily bargain to an optimal level of disclosure in the absence
of these disclosure requirements. Another relevant question is whether the
rules require too much disclosure and disclosure of the right kind.
The 1934 Exchange Act does much more than require periodic reporting
by public companies. It contains a broad antifraud provision, section 10(b),
now supplemented by SEC Rule 10b-5, that punishes false statements and
misleading omissions made in those periodic reports and in other communications by issuers, their ocers and directors, and other buyers and sellers
of securities. As with the 1933 Act, violations of section 10(b)/Rule 10b-5
can be punished by SEC administrative and civil actions, by criminal
charges brought by the SEC and by investors civil damage actions, often
brought as class actions. These lawsuits are quite controversial. Many
believe that they represent a terrible abuse of the legal process and prot
primarily plaintis attorneys at a tremendous cost to public companies
and their ocers, directors, auditors, attorneys and investment bankers
who are often defendants in such lawsuits. As noted earlier, the PSLRA of
1995 and SLUSA of 1998 were passed to make it harder for plainti
17
investors to win such suits and for plaintis attorneys to prot from bringing them. The controversial nature of the suits is highlighted by the fact that
some observers have concluded that the PSLRA and SLUSA sent a
message to ocers, directors, auditors, and others that they did not need to
take securities fraud liability seriously and indirectly created the atmosphere of abuse that spawned the Enron debacle and related scandals. Such
suits may be considered either a destructive abuse of the law or a necessary
supplement to enforcement by an often undermanned SEC.
The Exchange Act also registers and regulates stock brokers and dealers.
It regulates stock exchanges and authorizes self-regulation of securities
professionals by organizations such as the New York Stock Exchange
(NYSE) and the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD). The
Exchange Act also includes provisions that aect corporate governance by
creating disclosure requirements for proxy solicitations when shareholders
are asked to vote for directors at annual meetings and for extraordinary
corporate transactions such as mergers at special meetings. False statements made in proxy solicitations, whether by incumbent directors, insurgent shareholders, or others, can be punished under section 10(b), if
intentional, and under section 14(a) even if only negligently made.
The Exchange Act was amended by the Williams Act in 1968 to regulate
tender oers, in which a corporate acquirer makes a public oer to all corporate shareholders of a target company to buy their shares, usually in
order to take control of the company. An unregulated tender oer provides
opportunities for abuse, including coercion by the oering party, manipulation and self-dealing by management of the target company, and undue
secrecy and fraud by all parties involved. As in so many other areas, federal
regulation of tender oers requires full disclosure of relevant information,
punishes fraud, and adds various substantive and procedural provisions
designed to rationalize the process and give target shareholders an opportunity to digest the disclosed information.
The insider trading provisions of the Exchange Act are particular controversial. Corporate directors, ocers and other insiders will be privy to
some nonpublic information about the company that could signicantly
aect the value of its stock. This information might involve imminent
events such as a lucrative merger oer, positive or negative government
action, or a major technological breakthrough that will likely result in a
valuable patent being granted. Buying or selling shares on this inside information can enable the insider to reap large gains after the information
becomes public and the market price reacts to disclosure of the information. In most cases, this practice was not illegal under the basic law or corporate law but under the Exchange Act, such trading by insiders on
nonpublic information is usually unlawful.
18
Section 16 of the Exchange Act presumes that ocers, directors, and

holders of 10 percent of a public companys stock will use inside information in their trades. Therefore, actual use of inside information is not an
element of liability. Nor is an intent to violate the law. Section 16 forces
these company insiders to report their trades in their companys stock and
to forfeit to the company short-swing prots that occur when a sale at a
higher price follows within six months of a purchase at a lower price (prot
gained) or a sale at a lower price follows within six months of a sale at a
higher price (loss avoided). Six months is presumed to be the limit of the
useful life of inside information. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act accelerated the
ling of section 16 reports by insiders.
The broader and more controversial form of insider trading regulation
derives from section 10(b)s general antifraud provisions. Its coverage is
broader in that one need not be an ocer, director, or 10 percent shareholder in order to be potentially liable. However, in contrast to section 16,
one must be conscious of material, nonpublic information at the time of
the trade. Liability under this form of insider trading is extended to four
categories of defendants. First are company insiders who work for the
company whose shares are traded; they need not be top ocers or directors. Second are temporary insiders who receive material, nonpublic information from the company for a business purpose, such as investment
bankers who are hired by an acquirer to raise money in an as yet unannounced tender oer for the stock of a target company. Third are misappropriators, who essentially convert the material, nonpublic information to
their own use in breach of a duciary duty owed to the source of that information. Finally are tippees who receive information from a tipper (a
company insider, temporary insider, misappropriator or other tippee) who
is passing the information along in breach of a duty not to trade. Tippee
liability is imposed to ensure that tippers cannot prot indirectly by trading
through friends, relatives, and others.
Securities law does not typically concentrate so much on the agency
problems and duciary duties that are the focus of much corporate law.
Instead, it focuses on transactions and protects individuals who are not yet
shareholders and therefore not yet entitled to duciary protection. This
generalization is not universally trueinsider trading securities law, for
example, hinges on the violation of some duciary duty by an insider.
Furthermore, and as noted earlier, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act federalizes a
substantial part of corporate governance law in an attempt to blunt corporate fraud. To minimize abuse of the agency relationship, SarbanesOxley accelerates section 16 lings, prohibits companies loans to their
ocers, prevents ocers and directors from selling their companys shares
during pension black-out periods that keep lower-level employees from
19
selling, and forces ocers to forfeit performance-based bonuses and prots

from sales of stock that occur because of inated securities prices that later
fall when the company must restate its nancial statements due to misconduct. In addition, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act seeks to require directors to
obtain reliable information upon which to make their decisions and to deny
top ocers plausible deniability when frauds occur by requiring companies to install, document, and test internal control procedures. Via the stock
exchanges, the SEC has required listed companies to have a majority of
their directors be independent, and all directors on crucial board committeesaudit, compensation, and nominationto be independent.
Sarbanes-Oxley requires that the audit committee, not the CEO or CFO,
choose, monitor, and compensate their public companys outside auditor.
OVERLAP
The Sarbanes-Oxley Acts incursions into the realm of corporate governance demonstrate that the basic law, corporate law, and securities law
overlap and intersect, as is most clearly illustrated by the law of fraud. The
basic law has long recognized fraud claims which have the following basic
elements: (1) a false statement of fact (or sometimes an omission); (2) made
with knowledge of its falsity, or scienter; (3) reasonable reliance on the false
statement by the plainti; and (4) consequent damages. This law is general
and applies in numerous contexts, including corporate investments. Many
common law fraud cases are brought in the United States and many
succeed, but proof of scienter may be quite dicult, and proof of reasonable reliance may also prove troublesome. In some contexts, false factual
statements may be actionable with a lower standard, such as negligent misrepresentation, but these contexts are limited ones.
Corporate law generally does not have a distinct law of fraud, but its law
of duciary duties overlaps the law of fraud. Fraudulent behavior directed
toward a companys shareholders will typically violate the duciary duties
of loyalty, due care or disclosure. Fiduciary law has various advantages
over the law of fraud for the prospective plainti. It has a much relaxed
standard for scienter, extends to actions that are not misrepresentations
and therefore require no reliance, and in some circumstances even shifts the
burden of proof to the defendant to justify his or her actions. Corporate
duciary law also allows large groups of shareholder plaintis to join
together in a single lawsuit, which provides eciency benets and may
strengthen the chance of success. This law does have one major procedural
obstacle, however. In general, these breaches harm the corporation and, in
general, shareholders can recover only derivatively for the reduced value of
20
the corporation. Unless the board is clearly biased or displayed no reasonable business judgment, such a derivative action requires that the potential
plainti shareholder rst make a demand on the board, which may choose
not to pursue even a legitimate legal claim, as not being in the corporations
best interests. Fiduciary law is also limited to the existing shareholders of a
company (and not necessarily all of them), so a number of injured parties
may be unable to sue. A purchaser of stock generally has no corporate law
remedy for fraud that occurred prior to the purchase.
Securities law has its own laws of fraud, the elements of which, as noted
above, roughly trace those of the common law. The key fraud provision is
found in section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and it adds some additional
requirements to the common law elements of fraud, such as the necessity
that the fraudulent statement be made in the context of the purchase or sale
of securities (such that those who fail to buy or sell due to fraud cannot
sue). Section 10(b) also adds a more rigorous requirement that the false
statement be material. The law of securities fraud has relaxed other
common law elements, though. Under the traditional common law, a
plainti must have seen or heard the statement and directly relied on it.
Under contemporary securities law, a plainti can sue for fraud without
having read or directly relied on the statement, because the fraud presumably was read and relied on by others and incorporated in the market price
of the stock under the ecient market theory. This presumption of reliance
enables vast numbers of investors who have never relied upon, read, nor
even seen corporate misstatements to proceed via a class action which may
produce extremely large total damages. Such class actions are less available
under the common law because of the individualized reliance requirement.
With the reliance presumptions of securities law, the common questions of
falsity and scienter predominate, so the class action device may be available.
Securities law also functionally strengthens the law of fraud because the
securities laws have such extensive disclosure requirements. The many disclosures create more opportunities to sue for false statements or for omissions, when the disclosures contained only half truths. Securities law also
provides potential liability for fraud through market manipulation that
may not directly involve a misrepresentation of fact. The Securities Act of
1933 also contains some provisions that are relevant to securities fraud,
which have much more relaxed standards of proof but are also much more
limited in their scope.
The common law, corporate law and securities law of fraud thus overlap
in part but have distinguishing attributes as well. These alternative paths
generally strengthen legal protections, because a plainti may avail himself
or herself of whatever legal regime oers the best chance of success and
may usually sue on any or all theories simultaneously. The various
21
approaches are aimed at combating dierent problems and, for plaintis,

the more laws mean the more potential paths for litigation success. Critics
may argue that these dierent legal theories are too much, more than
necessary to prevent objectionable fraudulent practices. If so, the laws
could waste resources in litigation and deter reasonable corporate practices
that oer economic benets. This issue is at the heart of the book. There is
some inevitable tradeo between legal restrictions and free choice, but it is
not necessarily the case that freer choice is inevitably the economically
superior option.
The economics of basic, corporate and securities law are explored in
much greater detail in the remaining chapters of this book. We will analyze,
both theoretically and descriptively, how those laws operate. In the process,
we will suggest that the distinction between empowering and restrictive
rules is not so discrete as it might facially appear. Many of the same economic justications for the most basic legal rules of property and contract
law can be extended to justify restrictive corporate and securities laws.
Legal rules that seem supercially restrictive may in fact have a substantial
empowering eect, which furthers voluntary private transactions, even
though they simultaneously preclude some such voluntary deals. In many
cases, such restrictive rules may have a net empowering eect that promotes
transactions, even as they may obstruct some voluntary contracts. This
book examines that eect, rst theoretically and through the lens of the
history of legal regulation of rms. Following this analysis, we perform an
empirical analysis of the eects of this legal regulation, which builds on the
existing studies of this eect. Finally, we evaluate numerous prominent proposals for legal reform in the US law of corporate governance and securities regulation. The fact that law may enhance nancial development and
economic growth does not imply that every particular legal requirement
has this eect, and some laws may be counterproductive. The last chapter
of the book examines whether these proposals for law reform have merit.
So, in general, we will be asking whether corporate law and securities law
have, on balance, a benecial economic eect. We will also explore whether
those laws are best administered primarily at the state, national, or even
international level. One aspect of that exploration will be whether regulatory competition is a better approach than regulatory cooperation.
OUTLINE OF CHAPTERS
The second chapter of this book examines the economics of these legal
rules from a classical economic perspective. The economic justication for
legal institutions revolves around transaction costs. In the absence of the
22
law, private parties may face considerable risk in transactions, which

require some measure of trust in contracting parties. In order to ameliorate
the level of this risk, parties may incur considerable transaction costs.
These individuals must identify exchange partners, dene the terms of the
exchange, monitor the partners compliance with those terms, and enforce
the terms if compliance fails. The costs aliated with this process may be
considerable. When the amount of these costs surpasses the net benets of
the exchange itself, those benets must be forgone. Without state enforcement of economic rights, high transaction costs will paralyze complex
production systems, and specic investments in long-term exchange will
not be forthcoming.29 Hence, reducing transaction costs is central to promoting mutually benecial economic exchanges.
Although legal systems are typically justied by reference to justice or
fairness, for economists it is the reduction of transaction costs that justies
the costs of legal institutions and rules. Leading economists, such as
Ronald Coase and Oliver Williamson, have explained how the relative costs
of undertaking transactions can explain why businesses organize themselves into rms rather than simply being a web of contracts and why the
law can facilitate the ecient transactions of individuals and rms. When
a business trades goods for money, it obviously has production costs associated with those goods but it also has transaction-related costs. These
transaction costs may be great, exceeding the actual production cost of the
goods. Indeed, as society has become more complex, it has been estimated
that the transaction cost sector has grown to represent more than 50
percent of the entire US economy.30 In this circumstance, the minimization
of those transaction costs can be of great importance.
One primary virtue of the law, including the basic law, corporate law, and
securities law, is in its ability to reduce transaction costs. By providing a reasonably predictable and eective system for the enforcement of transactional commitments, plus a set of relatively uniform default rules, the law
can considerably reduce the costs for investors for each individualized
transaction. Information disclosure requirements, such as those found in
securities law, can have a similar eect in controlling investigatory costs for
particular investments. Governmental legal regulation can also increase
costs, though, and may increase transaction costs, so one cannot automatically presume the economic benet of any and all government action. This
chapter analyzes why the US law governing the rm and investments are
often ecient.
The third chapter goes beyond the classical economic perspective to draw
upon the ndings of human psychology. The classical model relies on
human rational choice, which suggests that individuals will choose wisely
the action that is in their best interest. In the economic context, the model
23
suggests that individuals will make the choice (such as the investment) that
oers the most lucrative benets, after calculating probable risks, prospects,
and associated costs of action. The rational choice paradigm is convenient
for modeling and surely contains some element of truth. People generally
prefer more money to less, all other things being equal, and will make the
choice that provides more money. However, the rational choice model may
fail to account for human frailties. Investors are not calculating robots and
they may be inuenced by various irrational factors in their choice. A
mountain of experimental psychological research has identied some of
these irrational factors, which may produce a systematic distortion of
random decisionmaking, not just random mistakes.
Our knowledge of these psychological inuences on human decisionmaking can help inform our choice of ecient legal and nancial systems.
To the extent that people have systematic psychological biases or use potentially unreliable psychological shortcuts called heuristics, the law can help
oset these features and nudge markets toward more ecient, fair outcomes. In the absence of any such eect, market participants will enter into
unwise, inecient transactions that benet neither themselves nor society
more broadly. While all humans, including government regulators and
judges, are subject to these cognitive limitations, it may be possible to
design structures that minimize their eects, and the corporate and securities laws can represent just such structures.
The fourth chapter of the book examines in more detail the history of
legal regulation of the rm in the United States. The basic legal system of
property, contract, and tort predates the American Revolution, as the
United States employed the traditional practices and precedents of
English common law, and these laws provided some governance for business of the era, including the development of duciary law. State corporate law traces its origins to the earliest days of our nation, and much of
the early law restricted the activities that corporations could undertake.
Delaware passed an empowering corporate law in 1899 that allowed
companies much greater freedom in designing their certicates and
provoked a wave of reincorporation in that state. Since that time,
Delaware has sought a balance of empowering and restrictive rules and
maintained its status as the preeminent state of major incorporations in
the United States.
The story of the development of federal securities law forms a central
part of the history in this chapter. For most of American history, the nation
had successful markets in corporate securities without any governing
federal securities law. The Securities Act and Exchange Act were promulgated in the 1930s, to respond to particular patterns of behavior that
were considered abusive. The requirements of securities law have developed
24
considerably since that time, though, under the implementing actions of the
SEC and the development of the law in court decisions. Two constant
themes of federal securities regulation have been that fraud is bad and that
greater disclosure is good. A focus of this book will be upon whether those
two guidelines have produced good or ill for Americas nancial markets
and economic wellbeing. The recognition of a private right of action over
and above government enforcement, enabling investors to bring their own
suits, considerably enhanced the impact of securities law, though these
private actions have been quite controversial and allegedly contrary to the
welfare of securities markets.
The fth chapter of the book embarks on an empirical study of the
eect of the law on nancial markets and economic wellbeing. This association has now been the subject of various economic cross-country
studies, using many dierent dependent and independent variables, which
has generally shown a positive eect for the legal system and particular
legal rules. While these studies make a persuasive case for the value of the
law, they have been conducted by economists and have not successfully
captured legal variables. In many cases, they have used overly simplistic
binary variables for the law, or have ignored legal procedure for legal substance, or vice versa.
We do not replicate this considerable and impressive past research but
seek to build upon it. Our empirical analysis uses some of the same variables as in prior studies but adds variables to better capture the substantive
and procedural features of national legal systems. The chapter seeks to integrate the ndings of the prior research by incorporating its various independent variables (the dierent measures of legal governance of the rm)
and dependent variables (the dierent measures of nancial and broader
economic outcomes). The chapter demonstrates how various legal requirements, including some of the restrictive requirements, have a positive
impact on various measures of economic wellbeing.
The sixth chapter of the book turns to contemporary academic and
political controversies regarding the proper legal regulation of rms. In the
wake of the nancial scandals discussed above, the public has often
demanded greater legal regulation of companies, as reected in legislation
such as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. By contrast, a number of conservative academics have made more rigorous economic arguments for the value of less
regulation of corporations and securities markets, in the interest of enhancing nancial markets. We analyze these recommendations, based on the
theory and empirical ndings of the prior chapters.
Most of the proposals involve greater market choice for companies or
investors, based on the presumption that restrictive statutory requirements
limit valuable exchanges. These proposals include:
25
the legalization of insider trading on nonpublic information, so that

companies can contract with their ocers and directors and allow
such trading, if they choose, as a form of compensation for their
insiders;
the ability to contract around fraud or other restrictive laws, so that
a contracting party may voluntarily choose to forego the right to sue
over being defrauded in the transaction;
the deregulation of corporate issuers and others associated with
selling shares in securities markets, in favor of some minimal threshold regulation of investors;31
the creation of competition among states in the requirements of securities laws, supplanting federal securities law;32
the ongoing vigorous debate over the eect of the recently adopted
federal Sarbanes-Oxley Act, strengthening internal protections
against opportunism.
We can oer no conclusive answers to these controversies. Our nal chapter

does explain how the case for these reforms is not so clear, from an economic and behavioral perspective, as is sometimes presented. Because even
restrictive laws can facilitate contracting and economic growth, one cannot
presume that the elimination of such legal restrictions is economically
benecial. We analyze these proposals from the theoretical and empirical
perspective of the preceding chapters.
The laws governing the rm have seen considerable academic investigation, especially in recent years. One interesting and ironic development can
be seen from this investigation. The theoretical economic analysis has generally questioned the current state of the law as too extensive and restrictive and argued that the laws role should be limited. By contrast, the
empirical economic analysis has fairly consistently demonstrated a
benecial role for greater involvement for the law, including some of the
particular provisions that have been criticized by the theoreticians. The
latter ndings must call some of the theoretical prescriptions into question.
The remainder of this book reexamines those theoretical claims, as well
as the empirical analyses, in hopes of producing a more coherent analysis
of legal regulation of the rm and its relative benets or detriments for
societal welfare.
NOTES
1.
2.
See Hernando de Soto, THE MYSTERY OF CAPITAL (2000).

Eugene Spector, Fraud Made Easy, NATL L.J., September 25, 2002, at A17.
26
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.

See Louis Kaplow & Steven Shavell, FAIRNESS VERSUS WELFARE (2002).
See e.g., Gregg Easterbrook, THE PROGRESS PARADOX (2003). Easterbrook
emphasized that Americans were steadily growing much richer in material terms, but this
trend was accompanied by increased dissatisfaction with their lives.
See Michael R. Hagerty & Ruut Veenhoven, Wealth and Happiness Revisited:
Growing National Income Does Go with Greater Happiness, 64 SOC. INDICATORS
RES. 1 (2003).
See e.g., Douglass C. North, INSTITUTIONS, INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE AND
ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE (1990).
Douglass C. North, Institutions and Economic Performance, in RATIONALITY, INSTITUTIONS AND ECONOMIC METHODOLOGY 245 (Uskali Maki, Bo Gustafsson,
& Christian Knudsen eds. 1993).
See Robert G. King & Ross Levine, Finance and Growth: Schumpeter Might Be Right,
108 Q. J. ECON. 717 (1993).
See Ross Levine & Sara Zervos, Stock Markets, Banks, and Economic Growth, AM.
ECON. REV. 537 (1998).
See Asli Demirguc-Kunt & Vojislav Maksimovic, Law, Finance, and Firm Growth, 53 J.
FIN. 2107 (1998).
See Jerey Wurgler, Financial Markets and the Allocation of Capital, 58 J. FIN. ECON.
187 (2000).
See Geert Bekaert, Campbell R. Harvey, & Christian Lundblad, Emerging Equity
Markets and Economic Development, NBER Working Paper #7763 (June 2000).
See R.G. Rajan & Luigi Zingales, Financial Dependence and Growth, 88 AM. ECON.
REV. 559 (1998).
See Ross Levine, Law, Finance, and Economic Growth, 8 J. FIN. INTERMED. 8 (1999).
See Peter L. Rousseau & Richard Sylla, Emerging Financial Markets and Early U.S.
Growth, NBER Working Paper #7448 (December 1999).
See Peter L. Rousseau & Paul Wachtel, Financial Intermediation and Economic
Performance: Historical Evidence from Five Industrialized Countries, 30 J. MONEY,
CREDIT & BANKING 657 (1998).
See R.G. Rajan & Luigi Zingales, Financial Dependence and Growth, 88 AM. ECON.
REV. 559 (1998).
See Rob Bauer, Nadja Guenster, & Roger Otten, Empirical Evidence on Corporate
Governance in Europe: The Eect on Stock Returns, Firm Value and Performance
(October 23, 2003).
See Bernard Black, Does Corporate Governance Matter? A Crude Test Using Russian
Data, 149 U. PENN. L. REV. 1231 (2001).
Carlos E. Campos, Roberto E. Newell, & Gregory Wilson, Corporate Governance
Develops in Emerging Markets, MCKINSEY ON FINANCE 19 (Winter 2002).
See Simon Johnson, John McMillan, & Christopher Woodru, Property Rights, Finance
and Entrepreneurship, Stanford Law and Economics Olin Working Paper No. 231 (March
2002) (studying Eastern European countries after the fall of communism and nding that
property rights were sucient to support necessary investment from retained earnings).
See e.g., Rafael La Porta, Florencio Lopez-de-Silanes, Andrei Shleifer, & Robert W.
Vishny, Legal Determinants of External Finance, 52 J. FIN. 1131 (1997).
Jonathan Baron & Ilana Ritov, Intuitions About Penalties and Compensation in the
Context of Tort Law, 7 J. RISK & UNCERTAINTY 17, 32 (1993).
See World Bank, WORLD DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2002: BUILDING INSTITUTIONS FOR MARKETS 123 (2002).
See Friedrich Schneider & Dominik Enste, Shadow Economies: Size, Causes, and
Consequences, 38 J. ECON LIT. 77 (2000).
Robert C. Ellickson, ORDER WITHOUT LAW (1991).
Lisa Bernstein, Opting Out of the Legal System: Extralegal Contractual Relations in the
Diamond Industry, J. LEGAL STUD. 21 (January 1992).
See Frank H. Easterbrook & Daniel R. Fischel, THE ECONOMIC STRUCTURE OF
CORPORATE LAW 2 (1991).

29.
30.
31.
32.
27
Thrainn Eggertsson, ECONOMIC BEHAVIOR AND INSTITUTIONS 317 (1990).

See John Wallis & Douglass C. North, Measuring the Transactions Sector in the
American Economy, in LONG TERM FACTORS IN AMERICAN ECONOMIC
GROWTH 121 (S. Engerman & R. Gallman eds. 1986).
See e.g., Stephen Choi, Regulating Investors Not Issuers: A Market-Based Proposal, 88
CAL. L. REV. 279 (2000).
See e.g., Roberta Romano, Empowering Investors: A Market Approach to Securities
Regulation, 107 YALE L.J. 2359 (1998).
2. The economics of the law and

corporate nance
Legal regulation is always subject to economic questions, because laws typically interfere in some manner with private choice and potentially
benecial private transactions. When the law prohibits certain behaviors, or
requires certain behaviors, or penalizes certain behaviors, it can prevent
private parties from employing (or eschewing) those behaviors, even when
both parties to a transaction believe the behaviors to be to their benet. In
addition, legal compliance adds its own costs to market transactions, as
private parties must investigate the law and take sometimes costly steps to
comply with the law and bear costs associated with the enforcement of that
law. Consequently, free market economists are commonly dubious of the
laws value. However, in many cases there is a strong case for the economic
value of the law, including the corporate and securities laws, which will be
discussed in this chapter.
Understanding the economic value of law begins with the concept of
trust. Every business deal requires some element of trust in the transactions other party. Some transactions, such as hiring a babysitter to look
after ones children, involve a great deal of trust. Even a straightforward
exchange of goods for money, though, involves some measure of trust. The
person acquiring the goods typically trusts the sellers assurances that the
goods are as representedfunctioning as expected and not unreasonably
hazardous, among other concerns. Even the seller paid in cash must have
some trust that the currency is not counterfeit. Parties trust their transactional partners not to take unfair advantage of their circumstances. Oliver
Williamson called taking advantage of a business partner opportunism.
Trust is fundamental to commercial transactions. The extent of the necessary trust will vary, of course, by the nature of the deal. An immediate
exchange of goods for money requires less trust than other types of transactions. A person lending his money to be repaid over time must repose a
great deal of trust in the borrower, as must an investor. Various circumstances aect the amount of trust entailed by a deal. A buyer may place
more trust in a seller who is well known to the buyer. The risks of trust may
also be mitigated by investigation. Research into the sellers background
and reputation and goods can all reduce the risk of trusting. This research
28
29
is a form of transaction cost, though, which adds to the cost of the bargain
and will be discussed below in greater detail. Absent blind trust, a party
must undertake the costs of investigating the trustworthiness of a potential
partner. Market transaction costs include costs of information, bargaining/negotiation over transactions, contracting (formal or informal), monitoring and enforcement of agreements, and search and information costs.1
The virtue of legal regulation comes largely from a reduction in these costs.
THE BASIC LAW AND TRUST

One potentially positive function of the basic foundational law of property,
contracts, and torts is the facilitation of transactions that rely on trust.
While the law cannot guarantee that a business partner is trustworthy, it can
penalize him for being untrustworthy. If a party breaches a contract, by
failing to perform or providing inferior goods, the other party may sue for
the breach and recover damages. If a party engages in fraud to induce a
transaction, the other party may sue for damages, perhaps including punitive damages, or may sue to rescind the contract altogether (and in many
courts still receive punitive damages). While litigation is costly and unpleasant, the important feature of the law is its deterrent eect. If individuals
know that they will be liable for untrustworthy behavior, and therefore
cannot benet from untrustworthy behavior, they are less likely to be
untrustworthy.
While the story of legal reinforcement of trust is a standard one, some
have argued that this benet of the law is mythical and that the law instead
destroys the trust necessary for private transactions, interfering with the
economy. Robert Putnams well-known work, Bowling Alone, argues that
the growth of law in America and the pressure to get it in writing have
undermined the basic level of interpersonal trust in our society.2 Lawyers
are said to induce mistrust and suspicion in their clients. The law also
enables unwarranted lawsuits against even trustworthy parties, as the law
may be a tool for opportunistic behavior. Outside the litigation context,
some businesspersons accuse lawyers of impairing the trust and cooperation needed for a successful alliance and therefore often admit lawyers to
negotiations as late as possible and even then minimize their role.3 The law
and lawyers are said to undermine the nations social capital, the degree
to which citizens are both trusting and trustworthy in their dealings.
Social scientists have fueled the claim that the law interferes with the
trust-facilitating business relationships. A political economist, Michael
Taylor, argued that apparently altruistic cooperation could develop
without the law and would decay in the presence of the law.4 He claims that
30
it is anarchy that engenders trust and eective government that destroys

trust. Management researchers have studied the association of legalization
of trust and found some evidence that legal formalization of relationships
may erode trust.5 Some scholars have contended that use of the law signals
to parties that they are neither trusted nor trustworthy to behave appropriately without such controls, thus leading to a spiral of legalization and
mistrust.6 Researchers from other elds, including law, political science,
and sociology, have suggested that legal restrictions could crowd out trusting behavior.
The case against the basic law of contracts has been made by reference
to relational contracts, which are exchanges where parties have declined to
rely on legal contract protections. Rather than working out detailed terms,
the parties to these relational contracts choose to work out any disagreements that arise through some conciliatory process, in order to maintain
their relationship. Sociologists have argued that this relational contract
process is really the essence of most business dealings.7 They have argued
that trustworthiness can only be demonstrated in the absence of binding
agreements. In these contracts, mutual trust supplants the need for legal
governance of the transaction. In the United States, even relational contracts exist in the shadow of the law, where the parties could still sue for at
least gross breaches of contract, but some argue that voluntary cooperation can eliminate the need for any legal intervention. They may even argue
that the law interferes with the relational trust of such contracts, contrary
to the interests of the parties.8
One can easily see some benets to relational contracts, as rushing to the
courts over every minor breach is surely inecient. In some countries, such
extralegal contracts are commonplace. Groups ranging from very small
traders in Mexico to bankers in Japan contract informally without any legal
formalities.9 Some business categories, such as diamond merchants, have
essentially removed themselves from legal governance in favor of their own
private system.10 These examples might seem to demonstrate that the law is
not necessary to create the trust necessary for business transactions and
may even be counterproductive. Evolutionary psychologist Matt Ridley
maintains that the governments legal regulation of trade has had mostly
disastrous results.11
At face value, however, the theoretical criticism of the law seems implausible. Consider that airlines are closely regulated for safety and additionally
face basic tort liability for negligence. It seems very unlikely that people
would place more trust in ying if planes were utterly deregulated and the
airline industry had no liability risk for accidents. The value of the laws
protections can be plainly seen in the commonality of contracts that are
not purely relational. Parties typically choose to reduce their signicant
31
agreements to formal legal terms, oftentimes detailed and voluminous. The

law does not compel them to take this action. This is a voluntary choice,
presumably taken because it is more ecient and enables transactions that
might otherwise be foregone. At this level, the law merely provides market
participants with another choice for arranging their deals.
Long-term contracts, such as investment contracts, are very trust-intensive.
Investors are highly vulnerable to opportunism, placing their funds in the
hands of others. Consequently, such investors are unlikely to take the risks of
investment absent a great deal of trust. If the investor were extremely familiar with a manager of his or her money, perhaps as a relative, such trust may
be innate. In other circumstances, the investor would have to establish this
level of familiarity by researching the managers character. Such research
would involve an examination of the nature of the business and the managers
past business history, an investigation that could be quite extensive and
dicult, demanding considerable transaction costs. We explore the value of
the law in enhancing trust and reducing these transaction costs, examining in
sequence the eects of the basic foundational law, corporate law, and securities law.
THE SIMPLE ECONOMICS OF LAW AND TRUST

The above critique of the eect of law on trust should be considered very
nave. It assumes that individuals will be openly trusting of others, without
any self-protection, and that others will inevitably prove trustworthy.
Investments are transactions where performance is not simultaneous but
may be greatly delayed. Absent simultaneity, the rst performer runs the
risk that the second performer will fail to perform.12 In this situation,
without legal protections, the rst performer can rely only upon trust.
It is simply not realistic for a person to be so trusting, automatically and
without evidence. If individuals are rational, they will not be blindly trusting of others but will take care to protect their own interests. Taken from a
conventional economic perspective, the trust associated with business
transactions involves a one-sided form of the famous Prisoners Dilemma.
If both sides of a deal are honest and carry out their promises, both prot
to some degree. However, if one side of the deal is dishonest and steals the
consideration from the transaction, providing nothing in return, the dishonest party may prot greatly, while the trusting party loses.
Figure 2.1 illustrates the problem with a simple matrix. In this scenario,
one party has the choice of whether to enter some form of investment contract or not. The other player has the choice of whether to honestly perform
or to opportunistically steal from the investor. No legal restrictions
32
Figure 2.1
Honesty
Opportunism
Invest
2,2
2,4
Dont
Invest
0,0
0,0
Prisoners dilemma of investment
inuence either decision. In this gure, the rst number represents the gain
or loss for the investor, the second gure the gain or loss for the other party.
In this simplied model, the investor has no opportunity to cheat and the
estimated payos are articially set (though the exact numbers do not
dictate the results, so long as the relative relationship is not altered).
If there is no contract, neither party sustains any economic eect, hence
the result of 0,0. If the contract is performed successfully, each gains from
the exchange in the amount 2,2. If the investor invests and the other party
is opportunistic, the investor is a net loser of its investment (2), while the
opportunistic party is a big gainer (4). The best strategy for the noninvestor party, in this single play scenario, is to be opportunistic. Of course,
the investor realizes that the preferred strategy for the other party is to be
opportunistic, which causes a loss to the investor, so the investor, in anticipation of this opportunism, has a dominant strategy of not investing in
the rst place. Of course, people do sometimes invest even in the absence of
any legal protection and others are honest, by nature, even though opportunism might oer them greater returns. However, if honesty is not
rewarded by an economic system, opportunism will be more common and
investment will be risky and less frequent. Consequently, the greatest societal loss from uncontrolled or undeterred opportunism is not in the costs
of the opportunism itself, the greatest loss lies in the transactions that do
not occur, because of fear of rational opportunism that prevents the risk of
transactions.
The possible escape from this Prisoners Dilemma involves the prospect
of repeated interactions. In the above gure, the opportunistic party gets a
one-shot gain of 4 but presumably no future investments from the investor,
as he will be shunned as an untrustworthy business partner. An honest
party, by contrast, may gain a series of repeated investments, yielding
benets of the gains from trade (2) times the frequency of these repeated
investments, which might seem to be a more lucrative strategy than that of
one-shot opportunism. Consequently, the investor would see that the better
33
strategy for the other party was honesty, to induce a string of repeated
investments, and would therefore risk the investment.
The eect of repeated transactions does not truly cure the Prisoners
Dilemma, however. At a formal level, economists have demonstrated that
the repeat transactions theory depends on innite repetition of these transactions. Otherwise, cooperation will unravel from the end.13 There would
always be an incentive for opportunism in the nal transaction, which
would deter investment in the nal transaction, which would in turn create
the incentive for opportunism in the penultimate transaction, which would
in turn deter investment in that transaction, and so on back to the original
transaction. Thus, rational game theory calls the reliance on repeat transactions into question.
There are other problems with the repeated transaction solution as well.
The rst problem is the articial presumption that the opportunistic party
cannot engage in repeated transactions with even higher payos. Even if the
opportunist is shunned by the rst investor, he or she may nd other
suckers. In a very small community, one or two instances of gross opportunism might prevent a party from doing any future business. However, in a
larger, more anonymous, community, the individual might succeed in a
series of multiple lucrative opportunistic transactions, reaping the benet of
4, every time the honest party would reap a benet of only 2. For example,
consider the serial con-men who have ourished over time, selling everything from snake oil to shares in uranium mines and other penny stocks.
Nobel Laureate George Akerlof analyzed this point in his famous
article, The Market for Lemons.14 He shows how in purely private ordering
bad products, such as used cars, can drive out good products, in cases where
sellers have more information on product quality than do buyers. Likewise
dishonest dealings tend to drive honest dealings out of the market.15 The
consequences of this phenomenon are not limited to the dishonest dealings
themselves. In a dishonest market, there will be far fewer transactions and
those that occur will be at a higher cost.
Inevitable detection problems also undermine the repeated transactions
answer to the Prisoners Dilemma. Opportunism need not be gross and
immediately obvious. A party might engage in more subtle opportunism
that took some time to discover, which would enable the party to reap the
benets of a good reputation and consequent repeat transactions and also
some benets of opportunism. A manager might cook the books and
make it appear as if he was honest, when he was not. Even with honest
accounting, if a corporation suers adverse results, it may be unclear for
some time whether they were simply the consequence of random chance or
opportunism and whether the results are likely to continue in the future. In
addition, an opportunistic party might succeed in maintaining anonymity,
34
behind a corporate shell or other entity, so that investors are unaware that
they may be dealing with a party who has a track record of dishonest,
opportunistic behavior. The parties who are best able and most likely to
engage in opportunism may be precisely the same ones who are best able and
most likely to cover up this behavior, in order to continue proting from it.
These detection problems are greater than they might rst appear. The
above discussion has presumed that the existence of opportunism was clear,
and parties only had to take the time to discover which parties had behaved
opportunistically. In practice, though, the opportunistic party can try to
cover its tracks, and it may even try to shift the blame to the other party,
claiming that the innocent party was truly the opportunistic one. If the
party succeeds, it will accrue the benets of both opportunism and reputational benets. The claims of a lawsuit are commonly met with counterclaims alleging that the plainti was the party who truly breached the
contract. A key benet of an eective legal system is the sorting out of the
claims and the identication of the true opportunistic party. In this manner,
the legal system does not replace but can signicantly enhance the
eectiveness of reputational sanctions. Without such a system, parties
would have to bear the considerable expense of conducting their own
private mini-trials to identify untrustworthy parties before the fact. This
investigation itself would seem to evidence suspicion and mistrust, before
the relationship even began.
The claim that the law undermines or crowds out trust is nave about the
inherent goodness of human nature and relies on largely undemonstrated
assumptions. The discussion of the nature of business trust is also too simplistic, as if the issue were only trust or not trust. In real business relationships, the more relevant question is To what degree should I trust?
Entities may make sensitive proprietary information available to others,
evidencing trust, while simultaneously retaining various protections for
their rights, evidencing some measure of distrust. Business research indicates that typical relationships contain a blend of trust and distrust.16 The
law enables parties to trust, without trusting absolutely and retaining some
protection against opportunism. In addition, businesses have various
potential partners and must decide not just to trust but also whom to trust,
among the alternatives. The law can facilitate both these decisions involving how much to trust and whom to trust.
Without the law, investors have to rely upon their own private investigation of investment quality and negotiate protection for their future interest. Investment contracts are particularly ill-suited to such eorts. It is more
dicult for investors to inspect a business than a physical good. The costs
of the investigation may be considerable and the eciency of securities
markets may depend on the ability of investors to be passive. Investors
35
benet from diversifying their portfolios but with added transaction costs
for each additional potential investment, such diversication can become
quite expensive. To the extent that the law can reduce the need for such
investigation or facilitate inexpensive investigation, it can enhance capital
markets.
The development of capitalist economies in post-communist states oers
a valuable test case for the role of law in market transactions. Research in
the relatively new economies of Eastern Europe has demonstrated that law
and trust are complementary rather than antagonistic. The researchers surveyed the eect of the law and legal institutions on the success of commercial transactions and considered the eect of relational contracting and
various legal measures.17 For commercial transactions, it found that the
variables capturing the possibilities for forming long-term relationships do
not appear to be as important as the law-related variables.18 A separate
study of Eastern Europe found that eective courts perceptibly increased
the level of trust in business transactions.19 Reliance on reputation and
repeat transactions apparently does not promote business trust as well as
does legal protection.
Despite the inherent limitations of exclusively private ordering, the
nature of the repeat play scenario of the Prisoners Dilemma, where parties
can benet from establishing a reputation for honesty, undoubtedly can
have some positive economic eect, especially in relatively small communities. It is distinctly possible that in small societies, where individuals know
one another well, legal restrictions simply add unnecessary xed costs to
the trusting equation. Drafting detailed contracts and complying with legal
rules and enforcing litigation certainly have their costs. In small, relatively
homogenous societies these costs may be unnecessary because private dealings can provide sucient incentive for honest business behavior.
Even some larger societies may rely on relationship-based systems. The
East Asian countries that had such economic success in the late twentieth
century relied heavily on relationship investing. These nations were not
pure cases of relational trust, because they had powerful governments that
directed the relational business. Nevertheless, they relied on interlocking
relational investments among business partners rather than more anonymous stock markets.20 Even in these nations, relational governance can
only go so far and as economies grow, relational governance can become
much more costly than rule-based governance.21 As economies grow, relational systems are also more vulnerable to crises. Because they are much less
transparent, serious problems in the relationship remain secret until they
have reached enormous proportions. Consequently, investors may not be
able to observe the change in the relation until the advent of a crisis, and
then panic erupts, as in fact occurred in the East Asian economies.22
36
Under the circumstances of modern society, opportunities for future

anonymous transactions still leave opportunism as the preferred strategy.
Absent governmental legal protection, the quality of information and the
credibility of punishment both degrade as the size of a group increases.23
The law may be unnecessary in a very small, homogenous group, such as
the diamond merchants mentioned earlier, with few anonymous transactions. However, as the group size grows, private monitoring is far less
eective. In this context, the net benet of opportunism, even with repeated
transactions and reputational concern, increases with the distance between
the parties. Milgrom and Roberts note that the reputational mechanism
cannot operate eectively in uid, impersonal, anonymous market settings.24 As this distance grows (both geographically and otherwise) and
additional business partners exist, the investor has a more dicult time
determining whom to trust and to what degree. The investor may either
invest the transaction costs necessary to ascertain the reliability of more
remote business partners or choose to stick with his or her own small community, whose reliability is already well known.
Indeed, the nature of relational trust raises another economic ineciency
associated with private orderingbusiness xenophobia. Trust is readily
extended to family members and then to an extended family, which may be
those of the same ethnicity that form a relational network. People who are
black like me or white like me may be more trusted than others.25 It is well
known that various ethnic groups have succeeded, in America and elsewhere,
through relational community-based dealings. Exclusion may also be based
upon class commonalities or those of gender. Relational governance thus
divides business communities among trusted insiders and outsiders who are
not trusted. Cultural outsiders are globally branded as untrustworthy.26
High levels of relational trust within a group can perversely lower the level
of overall societal trust. Aective relational trust thus has a racist, sexist and
generally xenophobic consequence. Robert Putnam himself recognized this
tendency as the dark side of social capital.27 In the place of bearing high
transaction costs associated with the investigation of outsiders, investors
may simply rely on the heuristic of trusting insiders. This has the additional
detriment of making the investors particularly susceptible to anity fraud,
which has ourished in recent years.
The xenophobic eect of purely private systems may well show up in
forms such as literal racism. While this outcome is objectionable on moral
grounds, it is also economically inecient. When investment capital is
limited by clan or geography or some other proxy for reliability, it cannot
ow freely to the most productive use. Investment will be aected by the
articial constructs of social division rather than eciency, which in turn
will preclude the ecient allocation of resources and result in lessened
37
returns to capital. Expanding the number of participants in markets will

increase competition which will enhance the eciency of markets. The relational, even family-oriented, nature of British business has been cited as an
explanation for that nations failure to fully exploit the opportunities
oered by the second industrial revolution in chemicals and electrical
equipment.28 Economies can grow when investors can choose among many
alternatives and invest their capital where it will be the most productive.
However, with more alternatives come greater private transaction costs necessary to avoid opportunism. Given this tradeo, some will choose to stay
close to home in their investment decisions.
The ineciencies of this relational xenophobia of trust go beyond
racism. Parties who transact in a relational system have great sunk costs in
one another. Their information about trustworthiness is person-specic
and not readily transferable. Switching to a new partner has great transaction costs in establishing trustworthiness and creates a substantial barrier
to exit from the business relationship. This eect prevents full competition
for future transactions and must undermine entrepreneurialism. The entrepreneur is a new market participant, more likely to lack the reputational
track record required for relational trust. The high exit costs of the private
relational system also facilitate some armative measure of opportunism.
The rational business partner knows that it can engage in some measure of
even openly opportunistic behavior and still preserve the business relationship, so long as the costs of the opportunism to the other party are less than
the exit cost of identifying more reliable alternative business partners. All
the above factors, ranging from transaction costs to business xenophobia,
operate to confound the eciency of a purely private system. Introducing
the law helps to ameliorate these problems.
To consider the eect of the law on transactions, rst return to the onesided Prisoners Dilemma problem of Figure 2.1. The situation in that
gure changes when there is a future cost to a partys taking an opportunistic benet, especially if that benet is rescinded due to opportunism.
Introduce the law into the basic single play scenario, and assume that the
law permits the investor to sue and rescind a transaction in which the other
party takes opportunistic advantage. Figure 2.2 modies Figure 2.1, with a
legal eect. None of the honesty or dont invest outcomes would
change under the law. However, the invest/opportunism scenario results
in a lawsuit. In this suit, the investor prevails in response to the illegal
opportunism and escapes the deal, but still loses something because of the
presence of litigation costs necessary to prevail at law. The other party also
loses, because it must give up its opportunistic gains from the transaction
and also must bear its own litigation costs, resulting in the 1,1 outcome.
If the opportunistic party does not contest the lawsuit, the outcome in this
38
Figure 2.2
Honesty
Opportunism
Invest
2,2
1,1
Dont
Invest
0,0
0,0
Investment decision with legal constraint
cell would be 0,0, as there would be no litigation costs but the rescission
would restore the parties to the dont invest scenario.
This gure illustrates the value of the law for encouraging transactions.
Now the dominant strategy for both parties is investment and honest performance of the contract. Both are better o than they would be with any
other combination of opportunism or failure to invest. Of course, the cells
of this gure assume that the law works perfectly. If this were so, one would
never actually see opportunism, which is an inevitably inferior strategy. It
is obvious that fraudulent opportunistic behavior continues to exist in our
world, even in the presence of legal constraints. The law does not work perfectly and parties may believe that they can get away with some forms of
opportunism. Some undoubtedly do, but the existence of legal enforcement
and liability awards must materially increase the risk of opportunistic
behavior and thereby shift the cost-benet calculus in the direction of
Figure 2.2.
The critics of the law could counter that the above economic model
ignores aective trust and basic human trustworthiness. In consequence,
the model overstates the need for external law and ignores the risk that the
law could crowd out extralegal trust among parties. Some defenders of
economic models, like Oliver Williamson, essentially claim that there is no
such thing as aective trust and might therefore sco at this answer. Neither
approach eectively captures reality. While Williamsons theory, that all
decisionmaking is cognitive and rational, might have validity, it does not
capture the reality of trust. Individuals often choose to trust others without
making a conscious cognitive assessment, based on some shorthand heuristic of trustworthiness (for example, he is a family member) that may or may
not have cognitive validity. This is what passes for aective trust, but such
aective trust may be easily exaggerated. There are untrustworthy people
throughout the world and the person who easily gives up aective trust is
sure to suer from dealings with the untrustworthy. Such an event might be
expected to lower the level of aective trust that person gives in the future.
39
However, a pattern of dealings in which trust is not betrayed can make

aective trust easier to give. To the extent that the law makes it less likely
that trust will be abused, it can crowd in trust, rather than crowding it out.
People would rationally rather do business with someone they think is
honest and can sue if he breaches his promise, than just someone they think
is honest.
Absent the law, uncertainties about opportunism and the transaction
costs associated with ameliorating those uncertainties will substantially
interfere with market development. Those dedicated to private ordering
have claimed that private organizations may arise to supplant the need for
the law. Private entities can investigate the quality of rms and thus may
serve the role of monitoring for opportunism or even enforcing against it.
Given the high transaction costs of investor investigation, private groups
would naturally arise to take advantage of scale economies and sell valuable information about the reliability of other parties. Even in the presence
of legal protections, various private monitoring intermediaries such as
credit-rating agencies have arisen in the market. Auditors provide a private
intermediary function in their verication of the accuracy of a rms
nancial reports. Stockbrokers exist to ll this role as well, advising
investors on prudent investments.
Private intermediaries, of course, add costs to the transaction. If the collection of information on the reliability of parties is expensive, this could
add signicant costs to purely private transactions. Moreover, private intermediaries rely on ex ante predictions beforehand and provide no post facto
relief in the event that opportunistic fraud occurs. While there is some
obvious benet in avoiding a bad transaction beforehand, no service that
depends on predicting the future can be perfectly accurate, so parties
relying on intermediaries still have some risk that the intermediarys assurances will be wrong and the parties will lose their entire investment to
unknown risks or opportunistic behavior. This residual uncertainty will
also mean fewer investments. In the context of corporate control transactions and the risk of looting, Easterbrook and Fischel argue for legal penalties on the grounds that the costs of deterrence are less than the costs of
dealing with looting through a system of prior scrutiny that would scotch
many valuable control shifts as a by-product.29
In this case, the ready availability of post facto relief may be much more
ecient than ex ante monitoring. Suppose that a community is largely
trusting by nature and only 20 percent of the population is opportunistic,
even though such opportunism could be protable. The investor does not
know which individuals are the opportunistic ones, however. To avoid
running a 20 percent risk of losing his or her entire investment requires a
thorough ex ante investigation into every possible party, including the vast
40
majority of honest parties, to ascertain their honesty. With an eective

post facto backstop, however, the same degree of extensive ex ante monitoring would be unnecessary. Because the relief has some costs and may be
imperfect, the investor might still engage in some ex ante investigation, but
the amount can be proportionally less due to the prospect of some post
facto relief.
A further basic shortcoming of reliance on private informational intermediaries is their own potential opportunism. Suppose party A is interested in the reliability of party B as a business partner and therefore
inquires of an intermediary about Bs reliability. The problem with this
arrangement is that As contract with the intermediary is of unknown reliability. The intermediary may be dispensing advice without bothering to
spend the resources on research or may even be in cahoots with B, taking
payments to testify to a defrauders reliability. To ensure the intermediarys
reliability, A might need to consult an intermediarys intermediary. Of
course, to ensure that entitys reliability, A might need an intermediary to
assess the intermediarys intermediary, and so on. This is not an ecient
system.
The response to this concern about opportunism is often that some
demonstrably reliable informational intermediaries will arise, because there
will be great prots to be made from this role. By establishing a long track
record of impeccable accuracy and the attendant reputation of reliability,
an intermediary should be able to charge substantially for its services and
maintain such very lucrative contracts for so long as it maintains this reputation. Experience does not bear out these claims, however. Indeed, there
is reason for concern that private informational intermediaries may exacerbate, rather than correct, opportunism at the corporate level.
Recent experience demonstrates the potential for conspiratorial opportunism among stock issuers and the intermediaries that purportedly
monitor them. Brokerage rms traded stock recommendations for other
business, such as investment banking opportunities. The most famous case
involved Jack Grubman of Salomon Smith Barney. He became very
wealthy and brought much investment banking money to his rm by collaborating in the fraud of the companies he was analyzing. His dealings
with WorldCom reected a warped symbiosis of corporate executive and
Wall Street analyst, in which he attended the companys board meetings
and advised the companys managers in carrying out their fraud.30
Grubman worked with the WorldCom chief executive ocer, Bernard
Ebbers, to jointly prot at the expense of the companys shareholders.
Although such extreme cases of conspiratorial opportunism seem obvious
in hindsight, many investors were defrauded at an earlier time, and many
such cases surely go undetected. Grubmans experience may be juxtaposed
41
against that of Chung Hu, a Houston stockbroker who warned his clients
to get out of Enron stock and was red by UBS Paine Webber for upsetting the Enron executives.31 The shortcomings of reliance on intermediaries
is expanded in Chapters 3 and 4. It does not appear as if brokerage intermediaries oer a reliable solution to managerial opportunism.
The problems with these entities is not conned to the recent market
bubble. Informational intermediaries have had a very mixed historical track
record in providing private monitoring. Consider the credit-rating agencies,
such as Standard & Poors. Unfortunately, as Frank Partnoy has pointed
out, those agencies performed abysmally in the 1990s.32 He noted that
[t]he last ones to react, in every case, were the credit-rating agencies, which
downgraded companies only after all the bad news was in, frequently just
days before a bankruptcy ling.33 Jonathan Macey suggests that creditrating agencies are essentially captured by the rms they rate because
their ratings can have such a signicant negative impact upon the rated
companies that the agencies are extremely reluctant to downgrade credit
ratings thus detonating a corporate nuclear bomb.34
Accounting rms represent a particularly crucial informational intermediary in the modern economy through corporate auditing. It might seem as
if these rms could serve as valuable and reliable intermediaries. Companies
hire auditors in order to demonstrate to investors that their books are accurate and hence have an incentive to hire auditors with a reputation for
scrupulous accuracy. Accounting rms consequently would have an incentive to maintain that reputation through honest auditing, even without any
government regulation. The case is not so clear, though, once one considers
counteracting incentives for opportunism. An auditing rm may have other,
more lucrative sources of revenue, such as consulting, and may nd it
protable to compromise accurate auditing in order to maintain that
revenue stream.35 Even if the rm as a whole had an incentive to maintain
an impeccable reputation, individual partners in the rm may have an incentive to cheat, to preserve their client base and compensation from the rm.36
Accounting rms may be able to get away with opportunism and still retain
reputational benets, due to detection problems. The Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles are rife with room for auditing judgment calls. The
actual quality of an audit can be very dicult to ascertain.37 Thus, an
auditor can mask opportunism as a debatable discretionary judgment. Even
if the auditors themselves were scrupulously honest, rms have some opportunity to mislead their auditors. They exert substantial control over the
information provided to auditors and even the most determined auditor
usually cannot detect a well-organized fraudulent scheme. Even when auditors do detect the scheme, the client management often escapes serious reputational damage by blaming the wrongdoing on rogue employees.
42
The aws in reliance on reputational incentives for auditing intermediaries

are evident from experience. Accountants have violated fundamental ethical
principles, including taking bribes from their clients. The recent era of corporate scandals has further exposed the shortcomings of reliance on this
private monitoring device. Accountants produced very misleading veried
nancial reports for rms such as Enron, WorldCom, and HealthSouth.
Some of these accounting issues were quite complex and in other cases it
appears as though the business managers misled their auditors. The existence
and especially the magnitude of the scandals, however, evidences the shortcomings in reliance on ex ante monitoring by accounting intermediaries. The
limitations of reliance on intermediaries to monitor reputation is further discussed in the following chapter.
Perhaps the most remarkable case of intermediary opportunism involves
Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS). This organization is a central
clearinghouse for information and adviser to large institutional shareholders on matters of corporate governance. Its existence is attributable almost
exclusively to the desire of large institutional shareholders to monitor companies for the presence of managerial opportunism at their expense. ISS
makes recommendations for clients on various proxy votes and other corporate governance matters and has become quite prominent in this informational and advisory role. However, ISS has developed a separate
business in which they take issuer companies as clients and advise them on
structuring corporate governance. This, of course, creates an obvious
conict of interest through which ISS can sell higher ratings to companies
that purchase its services (just as in the case of auditors who consult).38
The limits of the ability to prot from providing accurate information
further complicate the shortcomings of private informational intermediaries. While information may be enormously valuable, its dissemination is
dicult to control. A party who purchases the valuable private information
can readily disseminate to other non-paying parties, at little or no cost. This
easy free-riding on information provision makes it dicult for providers to
prot fairly from their information gathering and distribution costs. This
feature does not eliminate information provision from markets but suggests
that private market forces may underproduce the socially optimal quantities of information, because of the inevitable leakage of their product to
those who havent paid for it. Legal requirements, incidentally, can enhance
the private provision of valuable information by reducing the costs of information gathering.
An additional theoretical diculty with reliance on private intermediaries or other reputational controls will be the lack of competition in the
market. Such a system has very high sunk costs. It can take some time to
develop the valuable reputation necessary in such a system. With the need
43
for such time-consuming development of reputation comes high entry barriers, whether for the transacting rms themselves or the private monitoring intermediaries. As a consequence, such markets will tend to be highly
concentrated or even monopolistic. As a result, use of private systems will
have to pay the higher costs of monopoly rents, which may include some
opportunistic behavior on the part of the monopolist. The high sunk costs
of reputational systems have still another serious economic shortcoming in
adapting to change. If a new technology of a given technical superiority
becomes available, a relation-based system will be slower to adopt it than a
rule-based system, because the incumbents sunk stake in the prior technology provides less gain from switching to the newer technology, and barriers to entry prevent new competitors from arising and using the new
technology.39
Legal systems have some of the same sunk costs as private monitoring
and enforcement systems. These costs are only justied if they are not
unduly great and if the legal systems are suciently eective in practice. It
takes some time for legal systems to establish their societal utility. Once they
do so, they can produce the benets oered by the law but legal systems also
may be resistant to change and use of new technology. However, the government as monopolist monitoring intermediary has advantages over
private monopolist intermediaries, at least when the government is a democratic one. A private monopolist has concern only for the welfare of itself
(or its owners) and not the general societal welfare. A government, by contrast, has some concern for the overall societal welfare. Government ocials
will have some incentive to take some monopoly rents from this process, say
in the form of nicer oce furnishings. Democratic governance limits the
amount of this action, though. A casual glance demonstrates that oce
appointments of the managers of private industry, not to mention their
salaries, considerably exceed those of most high level government ocers.
The government may also oer eciency benets from economies of scale
beyond those of even large private monopolies. The government, of course,
is susceptible to private rent-seeking, as would be a private intermediary
institution, but transparent democratic governance limits this eect.40
Government enforcement through general revenues also oers other
benets to economic development. Private institutions cannot minimize
transaction costs as readily as can the government.41 Although reliance on
a private monopolist intermediary has lower transaction costs than a
system where each party must independently investigate all its partners,
those parties will still be required to pay the signicant costs of private
intermediary enforcement. This system might seem more ecient than that
of a government, because it internalizes the transaction costs among the
parties to the deal. However, economic development and successful capital
44
markets have enormous societal benets in the form of positive externalities. The entire society benets from economic growth, over and above the
prots gleaned by the parties. Consequently, to align social welfare with
private welfare, it is appropriate that some of the costs of transactions, such
as government enforcement, be spread throughout the society.
When ex ante intermediation protection against opportunism fails, a post
facto remedy is valuable, both for particular victims and for future deterrence. Purely private post facto enforcement has problems that go beyond
private monitoring through intermediaries. Private parties in the United
States commonly take disputes out of the court system, to arbitration, for
resolution. They do so with the knowledge that such arbitration awards will
generally be enforced much as would a courts decree. Without the government enforcement that comes with law, some private enforcement mechanism for private dispute resolution would be necessary. Such private
enforcement mechanisms exist today, for contracts outside the law or where
the law is ineective.
Throughout history, organized crime has performed functions such as
contract enforcement when the law is absent or ineective. Indeed, the
Maa itself may have arisen because the collapse of feudalism left Sicily
without any state authority to enforce deals.42 Where legal enforcement is
weak, organized crime has often lled the gap.43 The breakdown of government enforcement in Russia and Eastern Europe led to use of organized
crime to enforce contracts. In Latin America, shortcomings in the judicial
system have led to the use of justicieros to enforce private justice. In Japan,
the yakuza mobsters are used to enforce contracts and extract payments for
torts, when weaknesses in the legal system render it inadequate. Private
reliance on organized crime for enforcement would seem clearly inferior to
that of government, if only because government has a greater interest in
overall public welfare, while the interests of organized crime are merely
private.
Under some circumstances, private relational governance may be superior to legal rule-based governance. In small, simple economies, the costs
of creating and enforcing legal rules may exceed their benets. Once
economies grow larger and more complex, however, this is no longer the
case. In the United States of the nineteenth century, there was a steady evolution from informal to formal legal governance of business contracts and
rms. Between 1840 and 1920, the relational trust-based governance was
slowly supplanted by institutional trust based on law, as the economy grew
and the relational governance became inecient.44 The East Asian
economies of the latter part of the twentieth century underwent a similar
evolution.45 Developed economies are clearly past the tipping point, where
legal regulation adds eciency. With the increased globalization of the
45
world economy, greater legal regulation of business may enhance the

prospects for development of even smaller, less developed nations, by better
enabling trust in new business partners.
The legalization of contract relations has another often overlooked
benet, beyond the enabling of business trust, because formal contract
terms can help clarify the understanding of the parties. Think of an informal, relational contract, like a mother telling her babysitter to make sure
her child eats her dinner. This leaves open the questions of what the
dinner should consist of, and whether the child must eat every last scrap of
food, and whether the child might eat additional food, and whether certain
foods are unsafe for the particular child, and so on. Misunderstandings and
misfortunes might be prevented by a more detailed written set of instructions. The typical business contract contains far more complications than
found in this simple babysitter analogy. Contracts can be useful to enable a
more precise understanding of the agreed upon obligations of the parties.
Survey research shows that this clarifying function can be an important
value of business contract drafting.46 Thanks to this function, contracts are
not just compatible with trust and cooperation, they may armatively
enhance and sustain such desirable relational features of transactions.47
Of course, the precise denition of obligations in a contract can be quite
time-consuming and impose considerable transaction costs on the parties.
At the extreme, detailed contract denition involves something like foreseeing the future, anticipating all possible scenarios of opportunism or
simply unexpected factual developments that could in some way frustrate
the contracts purposes. Contract law, though, does not require this level of
detail, it simply allows such detail, should the parties believe the transaction costs of the detail to be worth the expense and eort. Again, the law
simply oers another alternative to be employed whenever the parties nd
it to be ecient. One of the values of corporate and securities law is that it
does much of the work for the parties, providing various detailed requirements implicit in all the contracts that the law governs. These rules, as discussed below, save parties some of the transaction costs associated with
detailed drafting.
The virtue of the basic foundational law is not limited to the prevention
of opportunism. Breaches of contract are commonly innocent actions,
which were unavoidable by one of the parties or a product of the parties
misunderstanding about the dimensions of their agreement. While these
misunderstandings occur even in the presence of detailed contract language, they surely would be far more frequent in a relational deal in which
none of the terms were clearly spelled out. Business studies of company
relationships have shown this value of legalization in promoting trust.48 A
study of a new drug development joint venture found that a binding
46
contract had benet in coordinating the relationship and clarifying the

parties duties and also served a valuable symbolic function, in signaling
the parties intentions to be a loyal partner.49
The basic foundational law of contracts thus yields economic benets,
beyond those available through complete private ordering. Property rights
and contract enforcement empower private ordering, a fact recognized by
most economists. The ur-text of law and economics, Richard Posners
Economic Analysis of Law, argues that a purely private system of agreements is not ecient, because legal enforcement is necessary to deter
opportunism.50 Tort law also helps control opportunism, by creating liability for theft or fraud. Most law and economics scholars recognize the
value of the foundational law, but they may argue that this traditional
common law legal framework is sucient to govern the rm and therefore
question the value of statutory corporate law and securities law. The
remainder of the chapter examines those claims.
ECONOMICS OF CORPORATE LAW

The rationale for corporate law is very similar to that for the basic foundational contract law. The corporate context is somewhat dierent, however,
as is the governing law. The principal concern of corporate law is that the
corporate ocers and directors act in the interest of the shareholders, as
their agents. While the ocers and directors have contracts, mere contract
law has some limitations here. A companys shareholders may represent an
enormous number of individuals, with varying amounts at stake, rather
than one single individual. The shareholders with a diversied portfolio
may have invested in many dierent corporations, another circumstance
which increases the costs of monitoring. Shareholders do not directly enter
the contracts with the ocers and directors, the contract of one ocer
agent is typically drafted by other shareholder agents, the directors, and the
shareholder chooses to invest, at best with knowledge of the contract terms
but relatively little control over them. Monitoring for opportunism is also
more dicult in the corporate governance context. Some suggest that monitoring problems are lessened in the corporate context, due to the presence
of large professional investors with the ability to conduct such monitoring.
While these parties may indeed have both the resources and expertise to
monitor corporate managers, their monitoring has the same high transaction costs, especially with a diversied portfolio. Moreover, even professional investor monitoring is beset by behavioral shortcomings, as
discussed in Chapter 3. Posner does not discuss corporate law in great
detail but is generally positive about its values, explaining that it reduces
47
transaction costs by implying in every charter the normal rights that a

shareholder could be expected to insist on.51
The rationale for many of the rules of corporate law is thus similar to a
central rationale for contract law, in restraining opportunism. Corporate
managers doubtless have greater opportunities for at least discreet opportunism at the expense of shareholders than do parties to a contract. The
one-sided Prisoners Dilemma analysis applies, perhaps with greater force,
in this context, yet this is not fully appreciated. Easterbrook and Fischel,
for example, embrace contractual relations but doubt the reality of managerial opportunism, suggesting that managers may do their best to take
advantage of their investors, but they nd that the dynamics of the market
drive them to act as if they had investors interests at heart.52 This is simply
the repeat play argument in the context of the one-sided Prisoners
Dilemma, and the claim suers all the same shortcomings of the repeat
play argument in contract. Given the greater monitoring diculties in the
corporate context, the deciencies of the claim are even greater than they
are for contract law and the agency problems may thus require a supplementation of contract law with corporate law. Managerial opportunism
may take the form of drafting contracts that permit managers to take
advantage of shareholders, who suer considerable transaction costs in
monitoring this behavior. Ocers adoption of corporate poison pills to
fend o acquisitions and entrench themselves in oce is one obvious
example of this sort of opportunistic behavior. The threat of such opportunism should not be minimized. A McKinsey study of Asian companies
found that 76 percent of investors worried more about governance than
they did about nancial issues.53 It is too simplistic to rely on managerial
self-interest to constrain managerial opportunism.
The value of the mandatory rules provided by corporate law derives from
the reduction in transaction costs in monitoring the threat of managerial
opportunism. When discussing the reason for providing corporations with
limited liability, Easterbrook and Fischel write:
First, limited liability decreases the need to monitor agents. To protect themselves, investors could monitor their agents more closely. The more risk they
bear, the more they will monitor. But beyond a point extra monitoring is not
worth the cost. Moreover, specialized risk bearing implies that many investors
will have diversied holdings. Only a portion of their wealth will be invested in
one rm. These diversied investors have neither the expertise nor the incentive
to monitor the actions of specialized agents. Limited liability makes
diversication and passivity a more rational strategy and so potentially reduces
the cost of operating the corporation.54
This rationale applies well to other mandatory corporate rules, such as

those requiring and elaborating the duciary duties of ocers and directors.
48
Limited liability reduces the magnitude of investor risk, but investors may
still suer great losses from corporate opportunism, as in the case of Enron.
A legal rule can enhance eciency by reducing the need for investors
to engage in costly and continuous monitoring of their managerial agents
actions.
There are valid arguments about the costs associated with compulsory
corporate rules. Rule enforcement inevitably has its costs. Dierent entities
have dierences in their basic businesses and in the identities of their
owners and managers and therefore may have dierent optimal governance
arrangements. Forcing certain commonalities upon these entities means
foregoing optimality, in at least some circumstances. But this added cost of
uniform legal rules only exists if one presumes that the owners and managers of these entities would nd and adopt the optimal governance rules,
in the absence of the law, a presumption that is not self-evident in light of
the agency problems of the rm. Merely identifying the rules could involve
considerable transaction cost that is avoided by the legal structure. The economic value of compulsory corporate rules will depend on the extent of the
agency problems in a purely private ordering, transaction costs, and on the
quality of the rules themselves, not some a priori abstract analysis of a perfectly functioning world without any agency and transaction cost problems.
The development of corporate law has reected recognition of this
tradeo between the risks of opportunism and the costs of legal intervention into corporate decisionmaking. The widely adopted business judgment rule gives great deference to the decisions of corporate ocers and
directors. It dictates that courts will not intervene in corporate decisionmaking when a plainti alleges a breach of the agents duty of care, unless
the breach appears especially egregious. This rule recognizes the costs of
legal second-guessing, balanced against the risk of agent misbehavior. The
true dangers of opportunism lie not in breaching the duty of care, however.
The duty of loyalty is the duciary duty at issue in the typical case of
opportunism, with agents proting at the expense of their principals. If the
entire board has a conict of interest, or is dominated by an individual with
a conict of interest, the court will give much stricter scrutiny to the corporate decision. The law thus strikes a balance between the value of controlling opportunism and the costs of excessive oversight. Of course, the
optimality of this balance is debatable and some have suggested that corporate law fails because it is too deferential to free management choice.55
The private voluntary choice of rms to adopt the corporate form provides something of a natural experiment that demonstrates the eciency of
the balance struck by corporate law. The law oers limited liability options
for investors, other than the corporation. Limited partnerships and limited
liability companies (LLCs) both provide such limited liability. These
49
alternative forms have their own state enabling laws that are typically less
restrictive than is corporate law. Consequently, they oer greater opportunity for arranging governance contractually, rather than by law. If such
private contractual governance were more ecient, one might expect
investors to ood to these alternative limited liability entities. And while
LLCs and other such entities have become increasingly popular for small
business organizations, corporations retain their preeminent role among
large business enterprises.56
Another criticism of restrictive corporate laws lies in claims of
ineciency arising from the laws ineectiveness. Easterbrook and Fischel
argue that the general availability of private contractual ordering means
that managerial opportunism is like a balloon that, when constricted in one
place, merely expands in another. They thus suggest that if corporate law
should forbid managers to divert corporate opportunities to themselves,
they might respond by drawing higher salaries or working less hard to open
up new business opportunities.57 At some level, this claim surely has truth.
The law does not extinguish the incentives for opportunism, and corporate
ocers certainly have been known to take excessive salaries. However, the
claim falls far short of invalidating restrictive corporate law, for two
reasons. First, the two forms of opportunism are not exclusive, that is, a
manager might both usurp corporate opportunities and take a higher
salary, absent the legal restrictions. The law might therefore reduce opportunism to some degree by eliminating one channel. Second, dierent forms
of opportunism present very dierent monitoring problems and associated
transaction costs for shareholders. The ocers cash salary is transparent
and easy to monitor, whereas the ocers usurpation of corporate opportunities is more dicult for shareholders to observe and hence a more
appropriate subject for legal deterrence. The corporate law sensibly restricts
the latter opportunism more than the former, because salaries are relatively
more amenable to control through private ordering. Prevailing standards
of corporate law do not fully displace private ordering; Delaware law is
empowering in many cases and, when restrictive, can operate to help overcome market ineciencies in controlling managerial opportunism.
Corporate law can also play an important clarifying function for business relationships, as in the case of contract formalization. An agent automatically assumes some duciary responsibility to the principal, but the
precise nature of the relationship may be obscure, absent the dened standards of corporate law. A duciary has some duty to disclose facts to shareholders but the reach of the duty may be uncertain. A duciary has a duty
of loyalty, but whether that duty is breached at the margin may be uncertain. Even in an atmosphere of trust, a misunderstanding about the scope
of these duties could prevent ecient investment decisions and interfere
50
with the relationship between investors and managers. The law can facilitate this relationship by clarifying expectations.
Corporate law is not absolutely necessary for legal governance of the
principal/agent relationship, as parties may contract the specic details of
the relationship. This individual contracting, though, adds to transaction
costs, as the parties hammer out the details of their relationship. The
parties must decide the terms they desire and the extent to which they can
compromise, which involves investigation into the need for particular protections and the appropriate language for those protections. Corporate law
can reduce these transaction costs with established uniform rules. Default
rules still permit the parties some choice to modify the legal standard,
though mandatory rules cannot be evaded through contract. Perhaps a
greater benet of the corporate law is not the particular choice of language
governing the relationship but the clarication of what that language
means. Words are not determinate and parties can agree on words without
agreeing on their meaning, and certainly without appreciating what a
future court might deem to be the words meaning.
The words of corporate law are not intrinsically clearer than those contained in a contract, and the potential scope of a general duciary duty
is quite vague. However, the identical statutory language governs many
transactions, so the meaning of these particular words becomes better
understood over time. While not every provision of corporate law has been
well-ventilated in court, the more signicant provisions such as duciary
duties have been extensively litigated over decades, and their dimensions are
now relatively well understood. This understanding provides the parties
with understanding and certainty that would not be available under contract language that may never have been interpreted in court. Easterbrook
and Fischel recognize some value to corporate law providing a set of terms
o-the-rack so that participants in corporate ventures can save the cost of
contracting.58 While there are many private services that provide such
o-the-rack contract terms, they cannot supply the interpretation of
those terms, as can government courts. When o-the-rack terms are
mandatory, they can oer still greater advantages in this regard, because
investors need not beware opportunistic modication of those terms by
self-interested managers.
A remarkable practice is the fact that public corporations very rarely use
the legally allowed freedom to draft certicates that are dierent from the
default terms provided by state law.59 This is a private ordering deference
to state choice, which seems unusual. The fact represents a market check
indicating that either the state will adopt better corporate procedures than
will the corporation itself (perhaps due to agency problems) or that the
network eects of belonging to a uniform corporate law system exceed
51
whatever benets might be achieved by marginally more optimal corporate

governance rules.
The benets of the clarication of understandings and consequent certainty associated with corporate law can be seen in the practice of the states.
As discussed in Chapter 1, Delaware is by far the most common situs of corporations, which are governed by the law of that state. Still, many companies,
especially smaller ones, are incorporated in their home states. When those
states have corporate law controversies, they commonly refer to and sometimes automatically defer to the law of Delaware. They resolve disputes as
they determine that Delaware would. This interstate deference is much more
common in corporate law than in other elds of law, because the Delaware
courts are considered expert and reliable, Delawares law is well developed
and clear, and because corporations value such clarity. The state of
Delawares law is surely imperfect, but its relative certainty oers an advantage to companies which may overcome any substantive imperfections.60
This advantage goes to the economic benets associated with network externalities, discussed in greater detail in the section below on securities law.
Corporate law addresses the particular risks associated with opportunism by managers who control the investments of shareholders. By creating a legal regime to govern this opportunism, it has the merit of
deterring the behavior and averting the transaction costs that would otherwise be necessary for investors who sought to protect their investment.
Corporate law also provides the added economic benet of producing othe-rack contract terms and an eective, uniform system of enforcement
of contracts, which also reduce the transaction costs associated with negotiating particular terms of an agreement.
ECONOMICS OF SECURITIES LAW

The economic rationale for securities law is more controversial. In contrast
to Posners positive portrayal of the economics of the basic foundational law,
he is critical of various aspects of the federal securities laws. He contends that
the securities law requirements neglect the natural eciency of large capital
markets, with their intermediaries and sophisticated investors, and concludes
that the regulation of new issues does not help investors.61 As compared
with the basic foundational law and traditional corporate law, federal securities law is a relatively new development, dating from the 1930s. Prior to that
time, securities markets operated under a largely voluntary, private system,
though there was some state regulation in the form of blue sky laws.
Securities regulation has been more controversial among economists than
has foundational basic or corporate law.
52
There were private market equivalents of legal protection for investors,

before the securities laws even existed, some of which are addressed in
Chapter 4. Prior to 1933, the New York Stock Exchange cued investors
based on the securities that it chose to list and supplied some nancial
information on those securities. While this experience shows the value of
disclosure, it does not demonstrate that private disclosure is sucient. As
discussed above, managerial opportunism can prevent optimal disclosure,
and private intermediaries do not resolve this issue. Traditional Coasean
theory calls for government intervention when such action can reduce
transaction costs below those that would otherwise exist. This is the theory
supporting contemporary federal securities regulation.
The economic analysis of the securities laws retraces much of the ground
covered above with the basic foundational law and corporate law. The basic
law provides rules to prevent opportunism in contractual dealings. The corporate law provides rules to prevent managers from opportunistically
taking advantage of their existing contract partners. Much of securities law
adds rules to prevent additional categories of opportunistic behavior, in the
particular context of securities purchases. The economic need for securities
law is not obvious a priori, but depends on whether the particular context
of securities purchases in capital markets has features that demand
dierent or greater protection than those associated with other contracts.
The debate over securities law also replays the claims that the law crowds
out relational aective trust. Larry Ribstein thus contends that securities
regulation presumes that investors lack trust and precludes any opportunity for genuine trust and trustworthiness by ensuring that everybody
acts under legal coercion.62 In a complex modern world, though, such
simple blind trust seems like a poor system for organizing an economy.
Corporate investments, which essentially involve handing over large sums
of money to the discretion of others, provide a context where unregulated
trust can be a prescription for enormous losses. Given the laws ability to
actually enhance even aective trust, the crowding out hypothesis cannot
dejustify legal regulation of the corporate form. The presence of private
structures of monitoring before the law and beyond the law provides ample
evidence that reliance on trust is insucient to support investment markets.
The economic case for mandatory disclosures of securities law lies rst
in the private underprovision of this information. As discussed above in the
context of private informational intermediaries, the diculty of excluding
non-payer free-riders from beneting from the information means that
the free market may not provide the optimal amount of information.
Market mechanisms have other shortcomings as well. Buyers may have
diculty ascertaining the reliability of the private intermediary that is
auditing the veracity of the issuers information, which may require the use
53
of intermediarys intermediaries of their own uncertain reliability, and

so on.
For some economists, a regime of mandatory disclosure (or even reliance
on intermediaries) is unnecessary, because rms will voluntarily disclose
that information that shareholders wish to know in order to invest and bid
up share prices. There is accumulating evidence about the nancial value to
rms of providing greater corporate disclosure. In countries with relatively
weak legal governance of the rm, companies voluntarily disclose more
and adopt higher quality internal governance systems than is legally
required, in order to attract equity capital.63 By regularly disclosing information, these rms assure investors that they can better monitor their
investments, which encourages investments in the rst place, which gives
rms an internal incentive to disclose.
These demonstrated benets of information disclosure do not necessarily persuade economists to believe in the virtue of mandatory disclosure. If
disclosure benets the rm, no mandate should be necessary. Critics may
argue that each rm chooses the optimum amount of disclosure for its own
particular circumstances. The existence of voluntary private disclosures,
thus, would be considered evidence that the law is unnecessary and possibly inecient. Private companies will go beyond legal requirements in disclosing in order to attract capital, and they would presumably do so at the
optimal level without making unnecessary disclosures, which inevitably
add cost for the company.
The presence of some valuable private disclosure may not be optimal,
though, and does not defeat the value of mandatory disclosure rules. While
there may be some alignment of interest between issuers and investors in
disclosure, it is imperfect. A rm that discloses bad news may enhance its
credibility, but investors still may not choose a company with credibly bad
results. For a company in serious trouble, such as incipient insolvency, there
is no incentive to disclose this truth. A shareholder wants to know if a
companys managers are performing badly, but a manager would not want
to disclose this fact. It is unrealistic to assume that managers will always
make voluntary disclosures that shareholders want, even when those disclosures make the managers look bad in the process. Existing shareholders
may even favor such managerial opportunism, which enables them to
unload their ownership interest on outsiders, at a price inated by misleading disclosures. Voluntary accurate disclosures can also be a tool of
future opportunism. By establishing a perception of credibility in the rst
instance, a con-man can attract more money to be stolen at a later date.
It is even possible that a reliable voluntary disclosure of certain information would not be as valuable as a mandatory disclosure of exactly that
same information, especially if the mandatory disclosure were backed with
54
greater sanctions for inaccuracy. A mandatory disclosure regime can

reduce transaction costs for investors. A companys past history of accurate, voluntary disclosures is no guarantee of its future performance.
Reliance on voluntary disclosure raises all the same shortcomings, risks,
and transaction costs of any relational, reputational system, described
above in the context of foundational contract law. Although Easterbrook
and Fischel are somewhat dubious of mandatory disclosure provisions,
they concede that [i]f federal disclosure laws reduce the costs of investors
becoming informed, they will increase investors net returns, and capital
markets will be able to allocate funds to higher valuing users.64 Thus, the
reduction of transaction costs can justify a mandatory disclosure regime.
Another valuable feature of the mandatory disclosure provisions of the
securities laws lies in their facilitation of post facto fraud enforcement
actions. Issuers may engage in a wide range of opportunistic dishonesty,
ranging from blatant lying to more subtle shading of the truth or convenient omission of important but negative information. The basic fraud laws
can help protect against the most blatant lying. The generalized legal principle that silence will not be fraud, however, makes enforcement against
subtler opportunism much less eective. The mandatory disclosure requirements help counteract this form of opportunistic behavior, by limiting the
option of silence or incomplete voluntary disclosures. Mandatory securities law disclosures demand that companies provide specic information
periodically and back that requirement with legal enforcement, should the
information be omitted or dishonest.
Bernard Black has stressed that for companies to sell shares to third
party investors, they must be able to convey credible information to those
parties.65 Even assuming that companies would provide exactly the same
information to investors in the absence of any securities laws, the laws could
still provide a credibility benet. Because of the securities laws, issuers face
a greater risk of both criminal and civil sanctions if the disclosed information is false and misleading, which means that investors can place greater
trust in the veracity of the disclosures. The risk of legal enforcement thus
benets the honest parties who seek to inform the market truthfully as well
as investors who rely on disclosed information.
The foundational common law fraud rules provided some protection
against misleading disclosures for investors, even in the absence of federal
securities fraud actions, but the common law rules had some serious shortcomings. Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, the basic authority for securities fraud litigation, has been adapted by the courts to the specic
circumstances of securities fraud, rather than the more general circumstances of garden variety fraud. In some circumstances, the requirements
of section 10(b) are more pro-defendant than that of ordinary fraud. Only
55
a seller or purchaser may sue under section 10(b), and a party that fails to
buy or sell securities has no possible claim. In other circumstances, such as
reliance, the federal securities fraud action is less restrictive of plaintis. By
adapting fraud to the circumstances of broadly traded publicly-held securities, in tandem with a mandatory disclosure regime and SEC enforcement, securities fraud laws can be much more eective than common law
fraud liability. By reducing informational asymmetries and providing protection for potential investors, such securities laws might reduce the cost of
capital to rms.
One key advantage of the securities fraud cause of action is its incorporation of some of the principles of nancial ecient market theories. At
common law, investors had to prove reasonable reliance on the fraudulent
misrepresentation, which meant that they must have read or heard its contents. This reading or hearing is exactly the sort of transaction cost to be
avoided by ecient markets. For every single investor in the market to read
every single prospectus and quarterly report of every candidate for investment would require very substantial costs. The theory of ecient markets
suggests that market prices reect this information, thanks to sophisticated
large institutional investors and intermediaries, even when most investors
are unfamiliar with the information. Hence, under the federal securities law,
a party may sue for fraud based on his or her reliance, not on the exact misrepresentation, but on the ecient markets use of that information.
The relaxed reliance requirement has another very great benet for
federal securities law, enabling more class action fraud litigation. There are
considerable transaction costs involved in enforcing rights through litigation, for plaintis as well as defendants. While many lament the overlegalization of our society, research in areas such as malpractice shows that the
vast majority of deserving plaintis do not even sue to recover what they
deserve. The costs of litigating can be especially great for fraud claims,
because plaintis need not only demonstrate that a defendant made a
material factual misrepresentation, they must also demonstrate that the
defendant knew of the falsity at the time (scienter or at least recklessness).
If each individual shareholder had to sue independently to recover his or her
damages, most fraud cases would not be brought, because the costs and risk
of litigation would exceed the recovery, even when fraud occurred. This
would mean less deterrence of fraud, which in turn means that investors face
more risk and are less likely to place their funds into securities with such
risk. The class action procedure, by cumulating the claims of all defrauded
shareholders, enables greater and more ecient enforcement. The securities
laws relaxed reliance requirement is crucial to enabling class actions.
Another incidental economic benet of section 10(b) is the nationalization of securities fraud law. Every state has some cause of action for fraud,
56
and their requirements are roughly similar, but each states law has its
nuances. Securities are traded in a national market and corporate representations are spread nationally. In the context of fraud, each alleged misrepresentation would have to be evaluated separately, perhaps under the
law of each of the 50 states. Some of the state laws could even conict,
where one state might require disclosure of certain information, while
another might prohibit its disclosure as unreliable. Being subject to all these
state rules is highly inecient for companies and adds transaction costs
associated with compliance. The nationalization of fraud rules for a
national market adds consistency and eciency to the law.
One further key economic benet from securities laws is the creation of
a uniform mandatory disclosure and enforcement system for investors.
While the free market celebrates diversity and choice, there are circumstances when coordination on a uniform mandated system has great
benets. Consider driving behavior. Highways are much more ecient (and
safer) because the United States has a law dictating driving on the right.
A free market system, in which drivers individually negotiated side of
road during each of their highway encounters would be far less ecient
than the uniform government rule. Indeed, the government rule would
probably be net benecial even if it picked the wrong side of the road for
ecient driving, simply by creating predictable uniformity in driving. Some
obvious examples of this principle in economic relationships include the
use of a common currency and standardized weights and measures.
Economically, the relevant issue involves what are sometimes called
network eects. Network eects describe the eciency benets associated
with everyone using the same system. The benets arising from common
use of the same system are sometimes called network externalities. When
all participants in a market conform to the same system, transaction costs
can be lessened. For this reason, product and service standardization is
used to reduce uncertainties, and eciency may call for the stipulation of a
minimum acceptable standard, leaving it to the market to exceed those
standards where ecient.66 The value of this coordination network externality can be seen in the development of private institutions, such as the
New York Stock Exchange, to create common rules for securities transactions. Signicantly, the NYSE, a private institutional intermediary, has
many mandatory rules for its members, although most of these rules have
been required or at least strongly encouraged by the SEC. This provides
some market test for the virtue of mandatory rules.
Michael Klausner has argued that corporate law can be justied in part
by network externalities.67 He observes that the traditional contractarian
paradigm of parties selecting the best rules for their transaction loses the
external benets of consistent contract terms and interpretation. He
57
stresses the benet of not only the common language of the law and contracts, but also that of judicial rulings that interpret and clarify that language. Klausner is generally skeptical of mandatory legal rules, as opposed
to default rules, in corporate law, though he recognizes that they may sometimes be preferable.68 His analysis of mandatory rules, though, is focused
on the identication of the best rule and not on transaction costs. Allowing
any deviation from the legal rules adds transaction costs for investors, if
only those costs associated with identifying the existence and meaning of
such a deviation. Rao thus notes that [m]arginal additions to standardization usually lead to decreasing utilities or returns, suggesting the existence of an optimal level of standardization, conducive enough to lead to
the formation of expectations.69
The same network externalities that support a common corporate law
apply to securities law. Corporate law provides a coordination benet that
protects investors against post-purchase opportunism, through reliable
legal rules. Securities law provides the same benet, primarily for those who
have not yet invested and need protection against fraudulent inducement of
their investment. Federal securities law gives assurances that investors will
have certain disclosures, that certain key information will not be omitted
from those disclosures, and that they will have legally enforceable rights
against parties who make materially misleading disclosures. Private networks can provide some of these benets but are not an adequate replacement for government. Because of the widespread positive external benets
of the coordinated system, no private network can fully capture the utility
it creates, which means that private networks will underinvest in creation of
these benets.70 Free-rider prospects for those outside the network compound this problem, as do the problems of intermediary opportunism and
market power discussed above. Experience in Russia demonstrates that
private intermediaries cannot eectively capture the coordination benets
provided by the law.71
Network eects have at times been lamented for their perpetuation of
ineciency. It is true that the eciencies of existing networks mean that a
less ecient incumbent technology might prevail in the market over a more
ecient new technology, because the less ecient incumbent had established network eects that deterred switching to the newer and better technology. In the free market, this need not be a serious problem, if the better
technology is signicantly better, those benets will outweigh the costs of
transitioning to it. There is ample historical evidence demonstrating that
network members will transition to form a new network around a demonstrably better product.72
It might seem like governmentally-imposed networks pose a greater risk
of this type of ineciency than do private networks, because the law may
58
preclude the private transition to a better system of disclosures. However,

this concern ignores the democratic governments own concern for an
ecient system, to produce societal welfare. Moreover, the private parties
subject to the government regulation are hardly without inuence in the
government. Issuers have successfully lobbied Congress to limit the scope
of securities fraud actions, most recently in connection with the PSLRA
and SLUSA. Likewise, issuers and intermediaries have successfully lobbied
Congress to defeat eorts to impose stricter accounting rules, such as the
expensing of stock options. Given the presence of this private inuence in
government, it seems likely that mandatory disclosure and other legal
requirements, when imperfect, will be overly lax rather than overly strict.
This imperfection of laxity, though, does not call for more private ordering
but instead indicates that government action should be strengthened.
An interesting natural experiment on this eect arose when a regulatory
change required rms on the Over the Counter Bulletin Board (OTCBB)
to comply with SEC reporting requirements. These rms were relatively
small, and many left the OTCBB rather than comply with additional disclosure mandates. However, according to a Wharton study, the compliant
rms experienced increased market liquidity and, more importantly, the
OTCBB rms who had already complied with these disclosure requirements experienced positive returns and increased liquidity, once all rms
were forced to disclose.73 This demonstrated the positive externalities associated with a mandatory disclosure regime and its contribution to market
reputation.
Uniform legal requirements, such as those of mandatory disclosure, can
serve to enhance aective trust. Such legalization can transform trust into
a commodity that serves as an entity that is familiar and subject to pressure to conform to established standards and serves as a dependable
anchor for easier and more trusting relationships as trust becomes routinely
and predictably available, formalized, and standardized.74 Once the nature
of the disclosures and the government enforcement system become regularized, investors need not expend the time, eort, and resources to fully
understand the scope of the disclosures and their remedies for opportunism, thus substantially reducing the transaction costs of individualized
investments. The fear of betrayal and concern for being played for a
sucker will especially undermine trust.75 To the extent that the law discourages such betrayals, it can promote greater aective trust. The requirements of securities law can also serve to enhance both cognitive and
aective trust and the consequential economic benets.
While a signicant dierence between corporate and securities law is the
protection that the latter aords to outside investors, this distinction is not
precise. Securities law contains regulation of proxy battles that goes to the
59
internal questions of corporate governance and the rights of current shareholders. The best price rules of the Williams Act governing tender oers
prevent acquirers from favoring corporate insiders at the expense of other
existing minority shareholders. Similarly, the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation of
2002 involves matters of internal corporate governance in addition to regulation of transactions with prospective purchasers. These rules would be
evaluated according to and justied by the analysis of agency problems discussed above in the context of state corporations laws, though the network
eects analysis in this section is also relevant to their value. For example,
an investor benets from the ability to rely on a uniform set of mandatory
restrictive legal proxy disclosure rules, rather than having to rely on continuously investigating and monitoring his or her contractual rights to
information disclosure.
EMPIRICAL STUDIES OF SECURITIES LAW

Ultimately, the questions of the value of foundational, corporate, and securities laws requires empirical testing of the benets and costs of the laws.
Such laws have theoretical advantages and disadvantages, and practice
enables us to ascertain which category of eects prevail. Chapter 5 of this
book will review the growing empirical literature on the cross-country comparisons of dierent legal regimes and their eect on economic growth and
capital markets and present our own empirical analyses of this eect. Other
types of studies have been conducted on the consequences of securities law,
though, ranging from historical analyses on the origin of this law to the use
of this law by foreign rms. This chapter concludes by briey reviewing
these categories of empirical ndings.
There have been some historical studies of the economic eects of some
aspects of securities law that focused on the eect of the rst introduction
of the law. One famous early study questioned the value of the securities
law, after nding that the passage of the Securities Act had no apparent
eect on the average return earned by investors in new stock issues.76 While
this study is often cited as evidence that the securities laws did not provide
any benet, it might also be noted that it also calls into question the claims
of critics that these laws were harmful. However, it is not clear that the
studys measure, the average return on new issues, is the proper test for the
eect of securities laws, as the eect of greater information should be a
reduction in opportunistic behavior, which would appear as a dierence in
the dispersion of returns from new issues. When this issue was more
recently studied, the research found that the new issues after the adoption
of the Securities Act did not signicantly aect the average return of New
60
York Stock Exchange issues, but found a dramatic eect for issues not
traded on the NYSE which were often overpriced prior to the Securities
Acts eect.77 Moreover, the dispersion of returns and associated risk was
lower after the Securities Act for all groups of shares studied, included
those traded on the NYSE. The results indicated that the information
eects of securities regulation should be reected in the risk borne by
investors, and not the average risk-adjusted returns.78
The mandatory disclosure rules also have seen some historical study.
George Benston studied the reaction of the market to the passage of the
1934 Exchange Act, by testing the subsequent results of rms which had
previously made required disclosures of sales against those which had
not.79 He found no material eect from the legislation. The study has seen
signicant criticism,80 though, and its implications are uncertain.81 Even
Benstons results indicated that the 1934 Act improved pricing accuracy in
the market. Several studies found that the mandatory disclosure provisions
of the 1933 and 1934 Acts reduced underwriter costs and that the disclosure programs increased investor condence and led directly to a large
increase in investor participation in the stock markets.82 A more recent
study, however, found that the laws passage did not markedly increase
public disclosures.83 We will examine this historical evidence further in
Chapter 4. Any such historical analysis is somewhat constrained by limits
on available data, but the record can provide some information.
These studies from the era surrounding the adoption of the securities
laws may be expected to underestimate the value of those laws in todays
world. As noted above, a new law takes some time to establish its market
credibility and yield its positive eects. Moreover, the SEC and its rules
were still relatively embryonic at the time period studied in this research
(prior to 1953 or even earlier). Thus, a lack of eect immediately after
passage of the laws does not mean much about the current operation of
those laws. It seems reasonable to expect that the Commissions rules and
enforcement activities have improved over time, as its sta has gained more
expertise and experience with implementing the laws. Any positive benets
of securities law would also grow as private parties became more familiar
with the regime and associated network eects aliated with the law. The
true benets from the law increase as it establishes its reliability and credibility and compliance becomes routinized and therefore cheaper. In the
process, heuristics of trust develop that increase market eciency.
The historical empirical measurements of securities law may inevitably
underestimate its benets, because they test only the federal securities laws.
Before the nation had a federalized Securities Act or Securities Exchange
Act, the states had written their own securities legislation, called blue sky
laws. These state laws had some signicant limitations, which provoked the
61
demand for uniform federal legislation. However, the state laws surely
oered some portion of the potential economic benets from securities
laws, so that studies of the federal laws would only capture a portion of the
benet from such laws, rather than representing a comprehensive measure.
Some international research also sheds light on the economic virtue of
securities laws. Corporate takeovers can help promote the ecient allocation of capital, by displacing ineective management. Acquirers typically
pay a material premium over the market price of a stock, which is undervalued. The presence of such acquisitions evidences some shortcomings in
internal corporate governance, suggesting that public shareholders are
either unaware of managerial shortcomings or unable to do anything about
them in corporate elections. The ability of outside acquirers to take over a
company, through devices such as tender oers, can thus enhance eciency
beyond that achievable by existing shareholders.84 Incidentally, the threat
of a takeover may also inuence managers to perform better and save their
jobs. The overall eectiveness of acquisitions in promoting this eciency,
though, depends on a variety of factors, including transaction costs, agency
costs, information problems, etc. Not all takeovers are ecientthe
acquirers managerial decision is also inuenced by agency opportunism
risk, but the presence of acquisitions can help discipline the market and
enhance eciency.
One test for the economic value of corporate and securities law is to
observe its eect on the market for corporate control through acquisitions.
A study at the European Corporate Governance Institute found that the
volume of merger and acquisition activity from 1999 to 2002 was much
greater in countries that had stronger shareholder protection and higher
accounting standards.85 In addition, hostile takeovers are more frequent in
countries with greatest investor protection, the premium paid to shareholders is greater in these countries, and cross-border mergers are more
likely if the target company is governed by stronger investment protection
laws. While these investor protections themselves add costs to acquisition
activity (such as mandatory disclosure requirements and restrictions on
how the takeover is structured), they apparently oer much greater countervailing economic benet and consequently enhance the market for corporate control.
Evidence for the economic benets of the securities law can also be seen
from a natural experiment involving foreign issuers of securities. Foreign
companies cross-list their securities, in the form of certain categories
of American Depository Receipts (ADRs), on US markets, thereby subjecting themselves to some of the restrictions of this countrys securities
laws. Doing so has the economic benet of providing more direct access
to US capital, but given the globalization of nancial capital markets,
62
cross-listing is not vital to accessing US capital. Some countries, to encourage cross-listing on their markets, have advertised corporate-friendly legal
rules, though the United States has maintained its strict securities law
requirements. These stricter rules may well have enhanced cross-listing in
the United States, implicitly demonstrating the economic advantages of its
securities regulation.
John Coee and others have suggested that such cross-listing in the
United States is a form of bonding by foreign companies, in which they
accept the relatively rigorous requirements of US securities law in order to
demonstrate the quality of their company and credibility of their disclosures.86 Cross-listing may take dierent forms but typically requires foreign
rms to materially increase their disclosures. US securities laws can lend
credibility to the cross-listing companies that enhances their investment
appeal. Companies from countries with lesser legal requirements may
reduce the agency risk costs of investment by binding themselves to tighter
standards.87 The existence of cross-listing provides another natural experiment regarding the value of US legal governance of corporate securities.
The phenomenon of cross-listing has been extensively investigated by
nancial economists. Much of the research shows a distinct benet to
cross-listing. An investigation of hundreds of cross-listings found that the
process signicantly reduced a companys cost of capital, and that the
benet was greater as the increased government regulation from crosslisting was greater (that is, as the home governance was weaker and when
the cross-listing was with an American exchange that exercised greater
supervisory power).88 A study of Canadian rms found that cross-listed
rms traded at a higher price than did their purely domestic counterparts.89
Other studies have shown that cross-listings increase rms market values.90
The benet is greatest for minority shareholders, as might be expected,
because of their vulnerability to opportunism.91 More specic accounting
research demonstrates that the value from the US securities laws comes
from the disclosure requirements, which enable more accurate projections
of the companys prospects.92
Some additional research has found that rms from weak investor protection nations were less likely to cross-list in the United States, but that
companies from those nations who did cross-list issued more equity.93
While this result has been used to question the bonding hypothesis, it is consistent with the possibility that agency problems prevent even ecient
bonding through cross-listing. The cross-listing test thus has some theoretical imperfections, because the individuals who choose to cross-list, a
companys ocers, are the very individuals whose opportunism is regulated
by US securities laws. Hence, the rms that might most benet from
bonding may be the least likely to undertake the process. Perhaps for this
63
reason, the empirical evidence on the bonding rationale for cross-listing is

not entirely consistent, but the evidence gives substantial support for the
claim that the costs of compliance with US securities laws are more than
overcome by the benets of such compliance.
The signicance of the cross-listing research should not be exaggerated,
many companies do not voluntarily cross-list (for reasons that may involve
eciency or managerial agency problems or some other factor). The presence of cross-listing simply provides evidence of the potentially empowering value of restrictive national laws, as foreign companies voluntarily
choose to bind themselves with restrictions in order to gain the benets of
this action. Indeed, the research on the value of regulation for cross-listing
could well understate the true eects of strict regulation, because the crosslisting decisions are made by managers who may have some self-interest
to the contrary. The positive results for cross-listed companies further
testify to the value of the SEC requirements. Other research has found that
rms providing more disclosures have a lower cost of capital,94 but again
this research is limited to voluntary disclosures. Evidence of such benets
of voluntary disclosure could overstate the value of mandatory rules
(which might require inecient excessive disclosure) or understate their
value (because agency problems make voluntary disclosure insucient and
inecient).
Some international evidence supports the economic value of compulsory
provisions of securities laws. When the developing market economies of the
Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland created rules for their economies,
the latter two countries adopted strong investor protection securities laws
with an independent regulator, while the Czech Republic did not do so.95
Some argued that the Czech approach was superior and that the securities
regulations would suocate the developing equity markets of Hungary
and Poland.96 In reality, the Hungarian and Polish markets outperformed
the Czech market, even though the latter nations privatization strategy
should have enhanced the development of stock markets.
These studies are limited in scope but clearly support the economic value
of securities regulation. It seems that US legal governance enhances the
ecient market for corporate control via acquisitions. US legal governance
appears to provide considerable value to rms, as evidenced from the economic value of cross-listing and bonding with federal securities laws. The
small test of emerging East European nations generally supports greater
securities legislation. The available evidence suggests that US laws are economically benecial, even when they appear to restrain private choice.
Chapter 5 will contain much broader cross-country studies of the association of various legal restrictions and market development, and this research
will demonstrate the economic value of securities regulation.
64
COSTS OF CORPORATE AND SECURITIES LAW

The benets of the law discussed above must be weighed against the costs
of the law. Critics of securities law have lamented the purportedly unnecessary costs of SEC compliance, but they have not examined those costs
closely. While there are no precise cost estimates for particular corporate or
securities laws, the law rm of Foley & Lardner has surveyed companies on
the cost of being public companies, which provides a rough proxy of the
costs associated with compliance with corporate and securities law.97
Companies would have signicant going public costs, even absent the law,
because of their need to attract external shareholders, but many of the costs
of going public are legally compelled. The Foley & Lardner survey found
that average 2003 costs for companies with annual revenue under US$1
billion were US$2.862 million, and average 2003 costs for companies with
annual revenue over US$1 billion were US$7.408 million.98 The largest
single component of these costs for the larger companies was lost productivity, though accounting costs and the costs of directors and liability
insurance were also substantial.
One can estimate the total societal costs of going public, as a rough proxy
for costs of compliance with corporate and securities law. The Mergent
Online database shows that in 2003, there were 1159 US public companies
with revenues over US$1 billion, and 5484 US public companies with revenues of less than US$1 billion. Multiplying these times the survey estimates yields a total national going public cost for all US companies of
about US$24.2 billion. This number estimates all going public expenses and
substantially overestimates the costs of the laws themselves. Companies
would have some material accounting and voluntary disclosure costs even
without any law, in their attempt to persuade outside investors to invest.
The amount of the overstatement would depend on the extent of voluntary
disclosure that companies would make, and many critics of the law assume
that this would be signicant. Hence, this US$24.2 billion estimate is an
upper bound that may considerably overstate the eective costs of legal
compliance. While these costs of going public, whether legal or voluntary,
seem substantial, they must be viewed in context, as illustrated by the following analysis of companies listed on the New York Stock Exchange.
In 2002, there were 2783 companies listed on the New York Stock
Exchange, of which 941 had over US$1 billion in revenues, according to the
Exchanges factbook and Mergent Online. Taking the cost estimates from
the Foley & Lardner study and applying them to these company numbers
yields a cumulative going public cost for NYSE companies of slightly more
than US$12.2 billion. As noted above, this is an upper bound for the costs
of corporate and securities law, overstating the true costs by some unknown
65
but possibly substantial amount. The true cost of the corporate and securities laws for NYSE-listed companies is something below US$12.2 billion.
To put this in context, the total market value of NYSE-listed companies
at the time was nearly US$10 trillion, according to the Exchanges factbook. The total costs of going public for these companies are thus less than
0.00012 of the companies market capitalization. Hence, only a miniscule
marginal benet from the law of 0.00012 would be required to economically justify their costs. Given the context of equity markets, the absolute
cost of going public is plainly quite small, and the potential net benet of
corporate and securities law is easily seen. The cost of the laws could be
justied by any market benet, even a proportionally tiny one. If the laws
work in the manner hypothesized above, they should pay for themselves
many times over.
CONCLUSION
Much conventional economic analysis of law rejects mandatory rules,
because they limit private choice. This analysis can approach the
Panglossian, claiming that a laissez faire result is the best possible result
and not to be questioned, simply because it is the product of a free market.
While there is obvious truth in recognizing the value of private choice, such
choice does not necessarily yield perfect results, and a government regulatory system can still oer additional economic benets even when it
restricts some aspects of that private choice. Government action can
enhance trust, can reduce transaction costs, and can contribute to valuable
network externalities that promote the development of nancial markets.
There is a strong theoretical case that legal rules, including restrictive
rules, contribute to economic eciency and developed capital markets.
While some economists argue that our rules are too restrictive and interfere
with the development of free markets, their case is an abstract one that does
not seem consistent with the experiential evidence. To the contrary, the best
case against our laws may be that they are insucient and permit too much
opportunism to continue unchecked. Certainly the corporate scandals of
recent years do not imply that our legal requirements are unduly rigorous.
This is an imperfect human world, though, and no procedure, legal or
private, will succeed in exterminating objectionable behavior. Decisions are
made on the margin, and legal rules, both empowering and restrictive, can
facilitate markets and economic development at this level, notwithstanding
their imperfections.
The economic case for basic, corporate, and securities laws laid out in
this chapter is theoretical and does not reach the level of proof. Given the
66
very small costs of the laws, it seems a plausible case, but it is not yet proved.
If the assumptions about trust and relative transaction costs and the costs
of government intervention that underlie this chapter were modied, one
could reach dierent conclusions about the economic value of these laws,
as many have. The issue of the relative accuracy of the various assumptions
and the economic eect of the law is ultimately a consequentialist one,
which requires real world empirical testing of the eect, of which this
chapter includes only little. The empirical research cited in this chapter supports the role of the laws we discuss. Additional empirical support for this
chapter is found in the history that will be supplied in Chapter 4 and the
quantitative studies addressed in Chapter 5. At present, we maintain only
that there is a valid economic theoretical reason to believe that the laws we
examine do indeed enhance eciency and economic development. The
critics economic case, which itself is almost entirely theoretical, is not a
sucient or compelling answer to the claim that the laws have value.
Before turning to our own empirical investigation of the theories,
however, we consider the behavioral analysis of economic decisionmaking.
While classical economic analysis has considerable validity, it rests upon
certain rational choice assumptions about individual decisionmaking that
are not entirely accurate. Considerable psychological research demonstrates that the assumptions of self-interested rational choice economic
analysis do not inevitably govern human actions. These ndings have implications for the choice between relational private and rule-based legal governance. The behavioral analysis builds upon and complements the
classical economic analysis of this chapter to set forth the theoretical basis
for the benets of law, including the mandatory restraining legal rules of
corporate and securities law.
NOTES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
P.K. Rao, THE ECONOMICS OF TRANSACTION COSTS 9 (2003).

Robert D. Putnam, BOWLING ALONE: THE COLLAPSE AND REVIVAL OF
AMERICAN COMMUNITY 14546 (2000).
George Dent, Lawyers and Trust in Business Alliances, 58 BUS. LAWYER 45, 45 (2002).
Michael Taylor, THE POSSIBILITY OF COOPERATION (1987).
Sim B. Sitkin & Nancy L. Roth, Explaining the Limited Eectiveness of Legalistic
Remedies for Trust/Distrust, 4 ORG. SCI. 367 (1993).
Sumantra Ghoshal & Peter Moran, Bad for Practice: A Critique of the Transaction Cost
Theory, 21 ACAD. MANAGEMENT REV. 13, 24 (1996).
See Stewart Macaulay, Non-Contractual Relations in Business: A Preliminary Study, 28
AM. SOCIOL. REV. 55 (1963).
David Charny, Nonlegal Sanctions in Commercial Relationships, 104 HARV. L. REV. 373
(1990).
World Bank, BUILDING INSTITUTIONS FOR MARKETS 171 (2002).

10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
67
Lisa Bernstein, Opting Out of the Legal System: Extralegal Contractual Relations in the
Diamond Industry, 21 J. LEGAL STUD. 1 (1992).
Matt Ridley, THE ORIGINS OF VIRTUE 202 (1996).
See Gillian K. Hadeld, Contract Law is Not Enough: The Many Legal Institutions that
Support Contractual Commitments, at 6, forthcoming in HANDBOOK OF NEW
INSTITUTIONAL ECONOMICS (Claude Menard & Mary Shirley eds. 2004).
Avinash K. Dixit, LAWLESSNESS AND ECONOMICS 16 (2004).
George A. Akerlof, The Market for Lemons: Quality Uncertainty and the Market
Mechanism, 84 Q.J. ECON. 488 (1970).
Id. at 495.
Roy J. Lewicki, et al., Trust and Distrust: New Relationships and Realities, 23 ACAD.
MANAGEMENT REV. 438 (1998).
Kathryn Hendley, Peter Murrell, & Randi Ryterman, Law Works in Russia: The Role of
Law in Interenterprise Transactions, in ASSESSING THE VALUE OF LAW IN TRANSITION ECONOMIES (Peter Murrell ed. 2001).
Id. at 85.
John McMillan & Christopher Woodru, Courts and Relational Contracts, 18 J. L.
ECON. & ORG. 221 (2002).
See John Shuhe Li, Relation-Based versus Rule-Based Governance: An Explanation of the
East Asian Miracle and Asian Crisis, 11 REV. INTL ECON. 651 (2003).
Id. at 660.
Id. at 661.
Avinash K. Dixit, LAWLESSNESS AND ECONOMICS 12 (2004).
P. Milgrom & J. Roberts, Economic Theories of the Firm: Past, Present, and Future, 11
CAN. J. ECON. 444, 449 (1988).
John P. Powelson, THE MORAL ECONOMY 111 (1998).
Sitkin & Roth, supra note 5, at 371.
Putnam, supra note 2, at 35063.
Alfred Chandler, SCALE AND SCOPE: THE DYNAMICS OF INDUSTRIAL CAPITALISM 28687 (1990).
Frank H. Easter brook & Daniel R. Fischel, THE ECONOMIC STRUCTURE OF
CORPORATE LAW 13031(1991).
Roger Lowenstein, ORIGINS OF THE CRASH 153 (2004).
Id. at 190.
See Frank Partnoy, INECTIOUS GREED (2003).
Id. at 352.
Jonathan R. Macey, A Pox on Both Your Houses: Enron, Sarbanes-Oxley and the Debate
Concerning the Relative Ecacy of Mandatory Versus Enabling Rules, 81 WASH. U. L.
Q. 329, 342 (2003).
See Arthur A. Schulte, Jr., Compatibility of Management Consulting and Auditing, 40
ACCT. REV. 587 (1965).
See Robert A. Prentice, The Case of the Irrational Auditor: A Behavioral Insight into
Securities Fraud Litigation, 95 N.W. U. L. REV. 133, 194 (2000).
See Stanley Bairman, Discussion of Auditing: Incentives and Truthful Reporting, 17 J.
ACCT. RES. 25 (1979).
Of Scolds and Conicts, WALL ST. J., June 22, 2004, at A18.
Dixit, supra note 13, at 8485.
Donald Wittman, THE MYTH OF DEMOCRATIC FAILURE: WHY POLITICAL
INSTITUTIONS ARE EFFICIENT (1995).
Rao, supra note 1, at 92.
Oriana Bandiera, Land Reform, the Market for Protection and the Origins of the Sicilian
Maa: Theory and Evidence, 19 J. LAW ECON. & ORG. 218 (2003).
See Frank B. Cross, Law and Economic Growth, 80 TEX.L.REV. 175152 (2002).
See L.J. Zucker, The Production of Trust: Institutional Sources of Economic Structure, 8
RESEARCH IN ORG. BEHAVIOR 55 (1986).
See Shuhe Li:, supra note 20.
68
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.

Allesandro Arrighetti, et al., Contract Law, Social Norms and Inter-Firm Cooperation,
21 CAMBRIDGE J. ECON. 171, 175 (1997).
Peter Vincent-Jones, Hybrid Organization, Contractual Governance, and Compulsory
Tendering in the Provision of Local Authority Services, in CONTRACTS, COOPERATION, AND COMPETITION 143, 158 (S. Deakin & J. Michie eds. 1997).
Rosalinde Klein Woolthuis, et al., Trust and Formal Control in Interorganizational
Relationships, Erasmus Research Institute of Management Report 13-ORG (2002).
Id. at 1213.
Richard A. Posner, ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF LAW 9091 (4th ed. 1992).
Id. at 411.
Easterbrook & Fischel, supra note 29, at 4.
Carlos E. Campos, Roberto E. Newell & Gregory Wilson, Corporate Governance
Develops in Emerging Markets, MCKINSEY ON FINANCE 19, (Winter 2002).
Easterbrook & Fischel supra note 29, at 4142.
Mark J. Roe, Corporate Laws Limits, 31 J. LEGAL STUD. 233 (2002).
See Cross, supra note 43, at 1737, 1747.
Id. at 34.
Henry Hansmann, Corporation and Contract, 8 AM. L. ECON. REV. 1 (2006).
See Ralph K. Winter, Jr., State Law, Shareholder Protection, and the Theory of the
Corporation, 6 J. LEGAL STUD. 251 (1977).
Posnet, ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF LAW, supra note 50, at 44445.
Larry E. Ribstein, Law v. Trust, 81 B.U. L. REV. 553, 573 (2001).
Art Durnev & E. Han Kim, To Steal or Not To Steal: Firm Attributes, Legal Environment
and Valuation, 60 J. FIN. 1461 (2005).
Bernard S. Black, The Legal and Institutional Preconditions for Strong Securities
Markets, 48 UCLA L. REV. 781, 786 (2001).
Michael Klausner, Corporations, Corporate Law, and Networks of Contracts, 81 VA. L.
REV. 757 (1995).
Id. at 834.
See Robert B. Ahdieh, Making Markets: Network Eects and the Role of Law in Creation
of Strong Securities Markets, 76 SO. CAL. L. REV. 277 (2003).
Id.
S.J. Liebowitz & Stephen E. Margolis, Network Externality: An Uncommon Tragedy, 8 J.
ECON. PERSP. 133 (1994).
Brian J. Bushee & Christian Leuz, Economic Consequences of SEC Disclosure
Regulations, Wharton Financial Institutions Center Working Paper (February 2003).
Sim B. Sitkin, On the Positive Eect of Legalization on Trust, 5 RESEARCH ON
NEGOTIATION IN ORG. 185, 190 (1995).
Margaret A. Blair & Lynn M. Stout, Trust, Trustworthiness and the Behavioral
Foundations of Corporate Law, 149 U. PA. L. REV. 1735, 1767 (2001).
George Stigler, Public Regulation of the Securities Markets, 37 J. BUS. 117 (1964).
Carol J. Simon, The Eect of the 1933 Securities Act on Investor Information and the
Performance of New Issues, 79 AM. ECON. REV. 295 (1989).
Id. at 309.
George J. Benston, Required Disclosure and the Stock Market: An Evaluation of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 63 AM. ECON. REV. 132 (1973).
See Irwin Friend & Randolph Westereld, Required Disclosure and the Stock Market:
Comment, AM ECON. REV. 467 (1975); Joel Seligman, The Historical Need for a
Mandatory Corporate Disclosure System, 9 J. CORP. L. 1 (1983).
Robert Prentice, Whither Securities Regulation? Some Behavioral Observations
Regarding Proposals for its Future, 51 DUKE L.J. 1397, 141920 (2002).

83.
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
96.
97.
98.
69
See Paul G. Mahoney & Jianping Mei, Mandatory vs. Contractual Disclosure in
Securities Markets: Evidence from the 1930s, University of Virginia Law School John M.
Olin Program in Law and Economics Working Paper #25 (2006).
Stefano Rossi & Paolo Volpin, Cross-Country Determinants of Mergers and Acquisitions,
ECGI Finance Working Paper No. 25/2003 (September 2003).
See John C. Coee, Racing Towards the Top? The Impact of Cross-Listings and Stock
Market Competition on International Corporate Governance, 102 COLUM. L. REV.
(2002).
See R.M. Stulz, Globalization of Equity Markets and the Cost of Capital, J. APPLIED
CORPORATE FIN. 8 (1999).
See Luzi Hail & Christian Leuz, Cost of Capital and Cash Flow Eects of U.S. CrossListings, ECGI Finance Working Paper (May 2004).
See Michael R. King & Dan Segal, Corporate Governance, International Cross Listing
and Home Bias, CAN. INVESTMENT REV. 8 (Winter 2003).
See Craig G. Doidge, Andrew Karolyi & Rene M. Stulz, Why are Foreign Firms Listed
in the U.S. Worth More?, 71 J. FIN. ECON. 205 (2004).
See Craig G. Doidge, U.S. Cross-Listings and the Private Benets of Control: Evidence
from Dual-Class Firms, 72 J. FIN. ECON 519 (2004).
Mark Lang, Karl Lins & Darius Miller, ADRs, Analysts, and Accuracy: Does Cross
Listing in the United States Improve a Firms Information Environment and Increase
Market Value, 41 J. ACC. RSCH. 317 (2003).
W.A. Reese & M. Weisbach, Protection of Minority Shareholder Interests, Cross-Listings
in the United States, and Subsequent Equity Oerings, 66 J. FIN ECON. 65 (2003).
Christine Botosan, Disclosure Level and the Cost of Equity Capital, 72 THE
ACCOUNTING REV. 323 (1997).
See Katarina Pistor, Law as a Determinant for Equity Market Development: The
Experience of Transition Economies in ASSESSING THE VALUE OF LAW IN TRANSITION ECONOMIES, supra note 17, at 267.
Id. at 278.
Thomas E. Hartman, Foley & Lardner LLP, The Cost of Being Public in the Era of
Sarbanes-Oxley (presented at the 2004 meeting of the National Directors Institute).
Id. at 14.
3. Behavioral analysis of law and

corporate nance
Chapter 2 demonstrated how traditional economic analysis could justify
various forms of law and regulation, including securities regulation, as
advancing economic eciency and capital market development. Some economists, however, have used similar versions of economic reasoning to argue
for minimization or outright elimination of securities regulation, or even
foundational and corporate law. These views may be based upon unrealistic
assumptions regarding how people make decisions. Traditional economic
analysis has great power but rests upon behavioral assumptions of rational
choice that are at best debatable. Psychological research into human behavior has shown that the simple behavioral assumptions of traditional economic analysis often do not apply. The purpose of this chapter is to explore
how these behavioral insights bolster the conclusions derived in Chapter 2.
The chapter applies the general principles of behavioral psychology to
highlight from a dierent perspective the value that well-designed, welladministered law can have in advancing the benets of a market economy.
The behavioral insights integrate well with the key concepts of trust and
transaction costs and their inuence on ecient economic outcomes.
INTRODUCTION TO BEHAVIORAL DECISION

THEORY
In antitrust law and some other areas, economic insights have added substantial enlightenment to policy analysis and had some impact on the law.
However, the rigorous logic of traditional economic analysis has often been
based on inaccurate premises, such as the rational man hypothesis. If one
grants the assumption that people are always rational maximizers of their
expected self-interest, then one may conclude that contracting parties will
always bargain to the most ecient outcome. As discussed in Chapter 2,
some maintain that investors should need no law or at most a bare bones
contract law with an ecient civil judicial system to protect their investments from the perdy of securities dealers, corporate ocers and directors, and other market participants. Corporation law and securities law
70
71
become largely redundant and even counterproductive in this calculus.

While Chapter 2 makes a traditional economic case for corporate and securities law, that case is enhanced and supplemented by an appreciation of the
research on human behavior.
Called varyingly behavioral law and economics, legal decision theory, and
related terms, what we shall call behavioral decision theory derives largely
from the work of Nobel Prize winning psychologist Daniel Kahneman and
his late colleague Amos Tversky. Through years of experiments that
have been replicated and extended by psychologists around the world,
Kahneman and Tversky demonstrated that individuals do not make decisions in the fully-informed, rational manner assumed by traditional economic analysis. Instead most individuals reasoning is infected by biases and
the tendency to use simplifying heuristics that often cause judgments to
divert from the theoretically rational in systematic ways.
Behavioral decision theory can improve economic analysis by providing
more realistic psychological foundations for its analysis. Behavioral decision theory and related research stemming from elds such as behavioral
nance, behavioral economics, and cognitive psychology add depth to our
understanding of the role that law can play in creating a just and ecient
society. Traditional economic theory posits that man is a rational maximizer of his expected utilities. Freed of governmental interference, such a
rational man could, some argue, freely bargain with sellers of securities for
an optimal level of disclosure and an optimal level of antifraud protection
to t his risk prole.
In the last 30 years, a mountain of experiments,1 largely performed in
the Kahneman and Tversky heuristics and biases tradition, demonstrates
that people tend to deviate systematically from rational norms when they
make decisions. As the study of human judgment has expanded beyond the
psychology discipline and given rise to behavioral nance and behavioral
economics, several related schools of thought have come to the fore. Some
psychologists and others, for example, have stressed how deviations from
the rational man model can constitute fast and frugal heuristics that can
be quite useful in certain decisionmaking settings.2 Others have sought to
steal the new eld of decisionmaking away from psychologists and bring it
back into economics by studying the economics of irrationality.3 This
section presents an overview of some of the more important deviations
from ideal rationality
Bounded Rationality and Rational Ignorance
While traditional economic theory assumes that decisionmakers have complete and perfectly accurate information, that is seldom the case. Collecting
72
full information is suciently expensive in terms of time, money, and eort

that most decisionmakers sensibly stop materially short of doing so.
Because of the lack of full information and additional limitations on rationality it is fair to say, as Nobel Prize winner Herbert Simon did long ago,
that people are intendedly rational, but only limitedly so.4 This insight is
consistent with that of traditional transaction cost economics but goes
beyond that analysis by recognizing that individuals may lack the ability to
optimize the precise amount and nature of transaction costs that they
should bear for perfectly rational eciency.
Conrmation Bias
Even if decisionmakers had relatively easy access to full information, perceptual limitations would hinder their decisionmaking. The conrmation
bias indicates that if people begin a decisionmaking process believing that,
for example, ABC Companys products are technically superior to those of
its competitors, they will tend to gather information that supports that
belief and ignore information that undermines it. Even trained scientists
judge research reports that agree with their views to be of higher quality
than comparable research reports that disagree with their views.5 This bias
and those that follow cause individuals to misestimate the transaction costs
they should undertake in contracting. They will tend to perform too little
informational investigation if they have an a priori trust in the other party.
Self-Serving Bias
The conrmation bias is strongly related to the broader self-serving bias
that indicates that when people gather, process, and even remember information, they tend to do so in ways that support their preexisting point of
view or their perceived self-interest. Information that contradicts their previous viewpoint or that undermines their perceived self-interest in some
other way, is less likely to be sought out, read carefully, considered thoroughly, or recalled later. Even sincere eorts to judge the fairness of a situation are inevitably colored by the self-interest of the person making the
judgment. For example, people tend to overvalue their own contributions
to a joint project. If a company is doing well, its CEO likely believes that
he or she is uniquely talented and responsible for its success.
Cognitive Dissonance
Reinforcing the conrmation bias and other problems with objectively processing information is Festingers concept of cognitive dissonance,6 the
73
notion that people prefer cognitive consistency and when they have made
a decision their minds will tend to suppress information inconsistent with
the decision they have made. Thus, an auditor who has publicly taken the
position that her clients nancial statements are accurate or an attorney
who has publicly stated that his client is innocent will have great diculty
objectively processing new information that is inconsistent with those positions. This concept reinforces belief persistence, the tendency of people to
hold to beliefs long after the basis for those beliefs has been thoroughly
discredited.
Emotions
Emotions can and do aect peoples reasoning. Even if a person had access
to full information, sometimes emotions such as anger or sadness prevent
or severely impede rational thought. The connection between emotions and
reasoning is complex, and it is well known that damage to key emotional
centers of the brain can make it dicult for people to make good decisions
or, indeed, to make decisions at all.7 One emotion that people do not enjoy
is regret; therefore, they will take extensive steps to avoid feeling regret, a
phenomenon termed regret aversion. Because humans tend to regret
adverse consequences that stem from their actions more than adverse consequences stemming from their inaction (the omission bias), anticipated
regret aversion can channel human decisionmaking in important ways.
Regret aversion suggests that, absent any legal protection, many individuals will choose not to invest in the market for fear of suering great losses,
even if the risk of such losses is small. Relatedly, people possess an innate
sense of fairness and will act in a way that damages their own self-interest
in order to punish others whom the decisionmaker believes have acted
unfairly. While emotions are not necessarily irrational, they are generally
ignored by traditional economic analysis.
Undue Optimism and Overcondence
It seems to be evolutionarily adaptive to be unduly optimistic, to believe
that the bad things that occur in life will mostly happen to other people and
not to us. There is some evidence that only the chronically depressed are
well-calibrated in this regard. Newlyweds optimistically believe that there
is a zero chance that they will get divorced, though 4050 percent of marriages end in divorce. People also tend to think that they are more moral,
more competent, better drivers, smarter investors,8 and otherwise generally
superior to their fellows. Because of undue optimism and overcondence,
people can make decisions that are ill-considered and occasionally unduly
74
risky. Undue optimism might, for example, cause a party to be blindly trusting of another even when such trust was unwarranted.
Illusion of Control
Related to undue optimism and overcondence is the illusion of control,
the irrational belief people often hold that they can inuence things that
are truly out of their control. Because of this illusion, people tend to roll a
pair of dice hard when they want a high number and softly when they want
a low number, and they value more highly a lottery ticket that they chose
from a bin as compared to a similar lottery ticket in that same bin that
someone else chose for them.
Availability Heuristic
Because of the availability heuristic, people often think that events that
seldom occur actually happen more frequently simply because they have
been in the news recently or are otherwise particularly available to recall.
Because murders make the headlines and strokes usually do not, people
tend to think that more people die of murder than strokes when the actually ration is 11 to 1 in the other direction. This heuristic, like many others,
will cause individuals to miscalculate the ecient transaction costs necessary for a particular decision.
Representativeness Heuristic
Because of the representativeness heuristic, decisionmakers tend to judge
probabilities by outing numerous rules of statistics and focusing instead
upon the degree of similarity that an item seems to bear to a category or
parent population. For example, in deciding whether a person is an accountant or a professional basketball player, people will tend to focus on how
much the person ts the stereotype of the two professions (tall? mildmannered?), ignoring the fact that there are many times more professional
accountants than professional basketball players. The fact that the representativeness heuristic tends to cause people to ignore base rates creates
many errors in statistical reasoning.
False Consensus Eect
People are often surprised that others do not share their views on issues
ranging from capital punishment to the designated hitter. They expect
others to share their viewsif they believe ABC Co. is a good investment,
75
they act as though others will believe that also.9 They expect others to share
their qualities: honest people expect other people to be honest; crooks have
much lower expectations for their fellow man. Because of the false consensus eect, honest people are often insuciently wary. A related phenomenon is the personal positivity biaswhich is what causes people to think
that although most politicians are crooks, their Senator is honest and
although many stockbrokers are untrustworthy, the one they have chosen
is a prince among men.
Insensitivity to the Source of Information
People have diculty not taking into account information that they are
exposed to, even if they are given evidence that the source of the information is biased or perhaps of dubious reliability. People adjust their perception of the information in light of the problems with the source, but
typically do not do so suciently. For example, from May 2000 to February
2001, the NASDAQ stock index fell by more than one-third, yet Wall Street
stock analysts sell recommendations held steady at 0 percent.10 This was a
clear signal to the market that many analysts were more concerned with
opportunistic behavior, protecting the interests of the investment bankers
in their rms, than they were with producing accurate reports. Nonetheless,
the market did not adequately adjust for the unreliability of the stock analysts.11 The SEC decried earnings management, yet issuers continued to
practice it and generally fooled even professional investors.12 This explains
how even unreliable intermediaries may thrive, failing to correct for opportunistic behavior.
The Conformity Bias
People tend to look to others for cues as to how to act. When more forks
than they are used to seeing are arranged around their plate at a fancy
dinner, they tend to look to others to see which one to pick up rst. In business as well, decisionmakers will be heavily inuenced by the decisions and
actions of those around them. Solomon Asch proved that subjects will
often say that one line that is obviously shorter than another is indeed
longer if several confederates of the experimenter have said that it is longer.
In cooperation games, people tend to cooperate if they think that is what
other participants will do; they tend not to cooperate if competition seems
to be the expected conduct. People are so inuenced by the actions and
views of others that in some contexts groupthink occurs, where group
loyalty in a homogeneous group and pressures to conform in a homogeneous group lead to a deterioration of mental eciency, reality testing,
76
and moral judgment.13 Reinforcing groupthink is the phenomenon known

as risky shift wherein decisionmakers will tend to make more extreme
(sometimes riskier) decisions when acting in small groups than when acting
alone. Yet another related notion is herding, where decisionmakers such as
hedge fund operators ignore their own judgment and even the underlying
facts, focusing primarily upon other peoples actions.
Low Probability Events
In calculating probabilities, not only do people tend to give undue weight
to vivid events (as noted above), but they also tend to completely ignore
some potentially signicant but low probability events. For that reason,
people tended not to wear seatbelts before the law required them to buckle
up and tended not to buy ood insurance unless there had been a recent
ood. When people do heed low probability events, they are likely to weight
them improperly and may exaggerate their signicance.
Anchoring and Adjustment
Although there is no particular reason for the last two digits of a persons
social security number to inuence their decisions, it will almost always do
so if they are asked to think of those numbers and then make a judgment
as to an uncertain numeric answer, such as the number of African countries
in the United Nations or the number of miles from Denver to Memphis. If
one of two negotiators rst mentions a number, it often anchors the discussion and inuences the ultimate outcome. Such anchoring may prevent
parties from properly adjusting to information about matters such as managerial opportunism.
Framing
Under certain circumstances, peoples answers to questions and solutions
to problems tend to change depending on how the question or problem is
framed, even if the substance of the query remains constant. For example,
people would rather buy potato chips that are advertised as 90 percent fatfree than identical chips advertised as 10 percent fat.14 Marketers of potato
chips and securities often take advantage of this weakness that most buyers
exhibit in making decisionsFidelity Investments recently advertised that
6 of its 24 funds were highly rated when it would have been as true to
say that 75 percent of its funds were not.15 The framing bias is one that
facilitates fraud by those who are clever enough to take advantage of the
bias in others.
77
Loss Aversion
A major implication of framing is that peoples decisions can be greatly
impacted by whether a problem is presented in a gain frame or a loss
frame. The reason is that people suer from the impact of losses about
twice as intensely as they enjoy gains. They will often, therefore, make seemingly irrational decisions in an eort to avoid sustaining losses. As with
regret aversion, this heuristic will cause individuals to underinvest in
markets, harming the economy, as the relative risk of loss grows.
Endowment Eect
Loss aversion is exacerbated by the endowment eect. Although a pen
would appear to be a pen and a candy bar a candy bar, hundreds of studies
show that if the pen or candy bar are ours, if we consider them part of our
endowment, we will often demand many times as much money to part with
them as we would have paid to acquire them in the rst place. Because
people do not feel that they were endowed with money they do not have on
account, hidden taxes ourish in our economy. Consistent with this
research, mutual funds continuously charge customers with hidden fees.
Investors avoid high front-end load fees that are quite visible, but tend to
ignore seemingly smaller ongoing operating expenses and other fees that
are hidden by the volatility of equity returns.16
Prospect Theory
Loss aversion, the endowment eect, reference dependent utility (the fact
that we are often more concerned with our position relative to other reference pointssuch as the status quo or the wealth of our neighborsthan
with our absolute position), and framing are four pieces that help make up
prospect theory, Kahneman and Tverskys proposed improvement upon
rational man economics subjective utility theory. Although not perfectly
satisfying, prospect theory suggests, in part, that the notion of utility
should be replaced with value, which is dened in terms of gains and
losses from a reference point with the value function being greater for gains
than for losses. Preferences will depend on whether a problem is presented
in a loss frame or a gain frame.17
Mental Accounting
Although to homo economicus, a dollar is a dollar, homo sapiens often treats
dollars dierently by placing them in separate mental accounts. Thus, for
78
example, people may be willing to spend money won in a rae in a frivolous way when they would not willingly spend money from their regular
paycheck in that way. Stocks may be treated dierently as well. One study
found that when employees options in pension funds are limited to stocks
and bonds of other companies, they average investing 51 percent of their
money in the stock funds and 49 percent in the bond funds. If a third choice
is added in the form of their own companys stock, they tend to invest 42
percent in their companys stock, and then 29 percent in the other stock
funds and 29 percent in the other bond funds. They account dierently for
their own companys shares, leading to a much dierent balance between
stocks and bonds.18 As noted above, a feature such as this will cause the
misallocation of the ecient optimization of transaction costs.
Status Quo Bias
All things being equal, people prefer the status quo, the familiar. They tend
to stick with the old favorite, even if they might choose an alternative were
they choosing for the rst time. Related to this is the habit heuristic. As a
handy mental shortcut, many people choose to drive a certain route to work
or to order a certain dish at a restaurant because they always do it and
need not expend mental energy reweighing the advantages and disadvantages of alternate choices.
Sunk Cost Eects
Assume that a couple has purchased tickets to a play whose traveling cast
is visiting their city from New York. On the day of the performance they
both feel sick and are told by reliable sources that the show really stinks. If
they had been given the tickets, the couple might well choose to stay home.
But if they paid for the tickets, they will hesitate to waste their money and
so they are much more likely to go to the play and suer loss of time that
will compound their loss of money. Rational people would not do this,
economists counsel, but most real people honor sunk costs.19 Indeed, once
costs are sunk, individuals and groups often decide to pour more and
more resources into a deteriorating situation in an irrational escalation of
commitment.
Time Delay Traps
When an action has short-term and long-term consequences, people tend
to underappreciate the impact of the latter. They tend to value immediate
over delayed gratication and often have great diculty making rational
79
intertemporal choices.20 According to Professor Kraakman, The Wall

Street Journal reports almost daily on at least one controlling executive
from a substantial rm who (now to his regret) chose to gamble personal
liability against the returns on bribery, price-xing, or third-party fraud.21
The time delay trap certainly plays a role in many of these criminal acts
where homo sapiens fails to act as homo economicus.
Bounded Willpower
Theoretically, a rational man who has made a decision as to what is in his
best interests can then execute that decision. Unfortunately, the very existence of smoking clinics and fat farms indicates that because of bounded
willpower, humans often are unable to act consistently with their own best
interests, even if those happen to be perceived accurately. Because of
time delay traps and bounded willpower, even a dominant ecient strategy
(such as the universally honest behavior of Figure 2.2 above) will not
always prevail.
Other aws in human judgment and decisionmaking could be added to
this already lengthy catalogue, but the obvious point is that people do not
act as traditional economic theory assumes. While all people are not
aected by all of these heuristics and biases in all circumstances, they do
tend to systematically depart from optimal decisionmaking in a variety of
settings. This extensive list reveals the limits of rational choice assumptions.
The implications of behavioralism should not be exaggerated. While the
long list of behavioral exceptions to rational choice might leave one thinking that we live in a wildly irrational world, markets do operate in at least
a roughly rational manner. Successful companies generally draw more
investment, and obviously failing companies are shunned. Many economic
predictions are conrmed in practice. Neither should the implications of
behavioralism be ignored, though. Imperfectly rational ecient behavior
leaves room for improvement. To the extent that the law can help counteract some of the systematic behavioral biases, it may produce a more extensive and more ecient system of capital markets.
ILLUSTRATIVE IMPACT OF BEHAVIORAL

DECISION THEORY
Although many of these heuristics and biases have been discovered in the
laboratory, most have been uncovered as psychologists attempted to determine explanations for real-life conduct that appeared to be inconsistent
with the economists rational man model. Most have been replicated in
80
studies of real-world decisionmakers.22 As an indication of the signicance

of behavioral decision theory, consider its impact on just one aspect of economic analysisthe ecient market hypothesis.
Some believe that the stock market is strong-form ecient, that securities prices respond to all relevant information, public or private. More
popular is semi-strong form eciencythat current prices reect everything that can be learned by studying public information.23 In 1978,
Professor Jensen announced that there is no other proposition in economics which has more solid empirical evidence supporting it than the
Ecient Markets Hypothesis.24
Although securities markets are certainly ecient and for many purposes
of analysis it makes sense to assume their more complete eciency, in real
life many departures from theoretical models are observed. The work of
Kahneman and Tversky, of Richard Thaler (founder of the eld of behavioral nance),25 and of Colin Camerer and many others (developers of the
subdiscipline of behavioral economics)26 has demonstrated that Jensens
statement was premature. That economists today admit that behavioral
studies demonstrate that investors are often far from rational, that the judgment biases of even sophisticated institutional investors are not isolated
quirks but consistent deep-rooted and systematic behavioral patterns27
counsels against overstating the eciency of the market, especially the
unregulated market.
Consider, for example, the equity premium puzzle. Since 1926, the annual
real return on equity securities has been approximately seven times as large
as the real return on treasury bills. Risk coecients cannot explain the
dierence. Within the standard expected utility-maximizing paradigm, this
persistent premium presents a conundrum. Why is anyone willing to hold
treasury bills and other bonds? The best explanation developed to date is
that proposed by Thaler and Benartzi that rests upon two behavioral concepts: (a) loss aversion, and (b) mental accounting. As noted earlier, mental
accounting means that, contrary to economic reasoning, people do not
treat all money as fungible. Combined, these two factors create what Thaler
and Benartzi called myopic loss-aversion. Over the long run equities will do
better than bonds, but in the short run they have much greater variability.
Because people, including sophisticated investors such as pension funds
and university endowments, hate to sustain losses, even in the short run,
they will demand a large premium to accept the return variability of equity
securities.28
Or consider that there is considerably more frequent trading on securities markets than rational models predict. One of the leading explanations
for why so much trading occurs is the overcondence of traders.
Whereas rational investors would not make trades if projected returns are
81
insucient to cover information and transaction costs, overly condent

investors would have unrealistic beliefs regarding their projected trading
prots. This hypothesis has been advanced by several scholars and
conrmed in an empirical study involving investors with discount brokerage accounts.29 And the more frequently investors trade, the worse they
tend to do.30
Or consider the disposition eect. The evidence is quite strong that loss
aversion and related phenomena cause investors to be reluctant to sell
shares when to do so would sustain a loss. Rather than suer the pain of
the loss, investors tend to hold on to the shares too long a time (and often
end up sustaining a much larger loss). In complementary fashion, investors
tend to sell shares that have accumulated small gains quickly in order to
lock in a gain and insure against a loss. In both regards, investors activity
contradicts models of ecient investing behavior.31
When empirical studies in nance demonstrated that investors tended to
underreact to releases of good news or bad news but overreact to a series
of releases of news, behavioralists indicated psychological grounds for
these inecient tendencies. Tversky and others had already demonstrated
that in making projections, people tend to pay too much attention to the
strength of evidence they consider and too little attention to its statistical
weight.32 Barberis, Shleifer, and Vishny developed a model of investor
sentiment that showed how this psychological tendency could account for
the markets under and overreactions.33
Why did the securities markets not react rationally during the dot.com
boom, when information surfaced that Enron seemingly owed no taxes,
and when WorldCom repeatedly met earnings projections by fractions of a
penny per share? Why was Alan Greenspans observation that the markets
suered from irrational exuberance so prescient? Ribstein sensibly suggests overoptimism as an explanation. In bubbles, investors tend to underestimate the likelihood of loss and are optimistic that even if the train
crashes, they will be one of the last ones to jump o before the collision.34
The availability eect and the representativeness heuristic can also lead
people to see trends that are not always there and to expect prices that have
been rising to continue to rise even in the absence of sound economic
reasons for them to do so.35
The most common response to these demonstrated errors is the claim
that sophisticated investors dominate the market, and their judgment and
expertise should always move the market to the ecient level. But in the
dot.com bubble, virtually all those sophisticated investors rode Enron stock
from its market high of 90 dollars right down to its bargain basement price
of 90 cents. They made the same cognitive mistakes as lay investors and lost
hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars when the bubble burst.36 The
82
fact that institutional investors were as prone to the hysteria of the dot.com
bubble as lay investors was not surprising to behavioralists. A wide array of
studies have indicated that experts with sophistication and experience,
including physicians, statisticians, judges, auditors, engineers, securities
analysts, nancial analysts, institutional investors, and others are often
nearly as subject to (and, occasionally, more subject to) the problems
caused by heuristic-driven and biased thinking as are lay people.37 In the
words of Hersh Shefrin, Wall Street strategists are prone to committing a
variety of behavioral errors and biases: gamblers fallacy, overcondence,
and anchoring.38
Research has found that investing professionals are boundedly rational;
operating under conditions that have both nancial and ego consequences
and where information acquisition costs are virtually zero, even professional security analysts deciding on which securities to select do not acquire
most (or even much) of the information available.39 Even institutional
investors tend to base their investing decisions on hunches, emotions, and
intuitions.40 Professional investors, like others, are subject to the availability heuristic, meaning in part that they are more likely to buy the stocks of
companies that are easy to recall, perhaps because they have been mentioned in the newspaper recently.41 Professional investors are also subject
to the representativeness heuristic, meaning that they are more likely to
judge some probabilities based not on statistical likelihood but upon the
similarity that an item seems to bear to a category or parent population.
This heuristic is part of the reason that professional investors irrationally
believe in the proverbial hot hand, the erroneous notion that a money
manager or security analyst who has been on a roll will stay on a roll.42 It
appears that investing professionals tend to ignore low probability events.43
This above discussion is far from exhaustive but should suce to illustrate that institutional and other sophisticated investors behavior does not
overcome the eects of psychological heuristics. If people are not models
of rationality and even institutional and other sophisticated investors can
make systematic misjudgments that prevent the nancial markets from
being as ecient as economic theory presumes, there is room for law and
regulation to play a role in improving market eciency.
BASIC LAW AND BEHAVIORAL DECISION THEORY

Economic analysis has dominated interdisciplinary legal research in recent
years, in part because it adds rigor to legal analysis. However, a limitation
on economic analysis is that the law attempts to inuence human behavior,
but economists often proceed from an incomplete understanding of why
83
humans act as they do. As already noted, the most frequent and signicant
misassumption of economic analysis is that human beings are optimally
rational maximizers of their expected utilities. Behavioral decision theory,
which starts from more realistic assumptions as to why people act as they
do, can help explain the role of law in advancing the eciency of markets.
Consider contract law. An overarching premise of economic analysis of
contracts, including those used to embody rights in corporate structures
and purchases and sales of securities, is found in an aspect of the Coase
Theorem which provides that the initial assignment of legal rights does not
determine which use will ultimately prevail because the parties will bargain
to the most ecient state of aairs.44 In other words, if left to their own
devices and without transaction costs, free of government interference, promoters of and investors in enterprises will negotiate to the most ecient
possible contract.
However, research from behavioral psychology indicates that the initial
assignment of legal rights matters signicantly in contractual bargaining.
Evidence indicates that people are both loss averse and impacted by the
endowment eect. Together, these concepts indicate that the initial distribution of rights will greatly impact negotiation between two parties.45 For
example, if a statute provides that employees will presumptively have
certain types of benets unless they agree to forfeit them, they are much
more likely to be accorded those benets by an employer than if the statute
provides that employees presumptively will not have those benets unless
they bargain with the employer to achieve them.46 Therefore, it is likely that
under a corporate code that assumes shareholders will not have inspection
rights or voting rights unless they take measures to have the Articles of
Incorporation amended, then they are much less likely to have such rights
than if the corporate code assumes that such rights exist. Economists recognize that transactions costs mean that the simple Coase Theorem cannot
describe reality but behavioral psychologists go further and recognize that
even in the absence of material transaction costs, such a renegotiation is not
likely to occur.
Besides loss aversion and the endowment eect, the related concept of
the status quo bias plays a role here. Ceteris paribus, people prefer the status
quo.47 Part of the reason is regret aversionthat they are more likely to
regret bad consequences that stem from their actions than from their inactions. By sticking with the status quo they reduce the risk of feeling regret
in the future.48 Thus, when New Jersey reduced the price of automobile
insurance along with coverage but gave insureds the option to opt into a
more expensive policy with broader rights and Pennsylvania did the
oppositeenacted an expanded-rights presumption that gave insureds the
option to opt into a cheaper regime with fewer rights to sue, in each state
84
most insureds chose what they perceived to be the status quo. A large
majority of New Jersey residents chose cheaper insurance and less coverage while a large majority of Pennsylvanians chose more expensive insurance and more coverage.49 As Korobkin has demonstrated experimentally,
parties tend to treat form contracts as the status quo and to accept them
with little question or negotiation.50 Consumers may well accept a warranty disclaimer or arbitration clause that is part of a form contract
because it seems to be the status quo, where they would object loudly to the
suggestion that such a provision be penciled into a form contract that did
not contain them.51
Some argue that although the status quo bias might explain why Coasian
bargaining does not occur in real life when economists theorize that it
should, it does not explain why abusive terms persist. The notion is that
competition should force merchants to place pro-consumer provisions in
their contracts. Unfortunately, the reverse is often true. Because consumers
and investors tend not to pay attention to nonprice terms and often believe
that unfair collateral terms such as waivers of rights or arbitration provisions will never apply to them (because of the tendency people have to be
unduly optimistic and to ignore low probability events), competition actually forces merchants to include such terms so they will not miss out on the
prots their competitors are achieving by scalping customers. The simple
fact is that contract renegotiation is quite rare, indicating that contracting
parties do not, when faced with a contract that is not optimal, reopen bargaining to work toward a better solution, indicates that the Coase theorem
is unduly optimistic. If parties cannot be counted to bargain to the most
ecient result, then there may well be a role for law and regulation.
As indicated in the previous chapter, trust is an important part of a business environment, and law can foster trust. People do not wish to do business in a crooked marketplace. This is true in part because of rational fears
of being exploited by dishonest companies and individuals. In addition, it
is true because people inherently value fairness. Humans are guided by an
innate sense of fairness that drives their actions, attitudes and behaviors.52
Although it is not always rational for people to act fairly toward others in
a one-shot ultimatum game context, they often do. They do because fairness matters, as research in behavioral decision theory indicates. In the
experimental ultimatum game, A may be given US$100 with the power to
oer any division between himself and B. But if B rejects the division,
neither party receives anything. Rationally, economists say, A should oer
US$1 to B and propose to keep US$99 for himself. B should accept this
because US$1 is better than nothing. However, typically oerors propose
much fairer divisions of the US$100 (often 50/50) and oerees who are
oered a very small share often reject it. They would rather receive nothing
85
in order to punish the oeror for acting inequitably than to receive an

amount they perceive as unfair. Many oerees are willing to suer an economic loss in order to promote perceived fairness.53
Contract rules that promote fairness can not only benet society by recognizing that eciency is not the only value that policy should be concerned with; they can also promote eciency by creating the type of
economic atmosphere in which people wish to do business. To promote
fairness, contract law allows incapacitated people to disarm their contracts.54 Not only does this policy deter and punish inequitable conduct and
prevent the governments enforcement mechanism from being used for an
inappropriate purpose,55 it also advances eciency because incapacitated
people are unlikely to allocate their resources in an optimal manner. To
promote fairness, contract law prohibits fraud. As Farnsworth points out,
intentional misrepresentation is the type of act that invites courts to make
moral judgments.56 Fortunately, this rule also promotes eciency, for fraud
undermines the ecient allocation of resources.
The importance of law in this regard is dicult to overstate, for an unregulated system of private contracting can lead to rampant opportunism. For
several reasons, many having to do with the tenets of behavioral decision
theory, a lawless market is suboptimal. First, people are usually unable to
tell when they are being lied to. Many studies show that few people can
guess at a better than chance level as to when people are lying to them.57
Worse yet, because of overcondence, people think they are adept at lie
detecting, leaving them particularly vulnerable. The consensus eect exacerbates an already bad situation by increasing an honest persons vulnerability when they are dealing with someone they perceive to be like them
(hence the popularity of anity frauds). And even if people learn that the
person they are contracting with is untrustworthy, insensitivity to source
means that they may well fail to take adequate steps to protect themselves.
Those who do not fall prey to fraud may be overly cautious and frightened
of any investment, for fear of being defrauded, even when the other party
is honest. Contract rules that refuse to enforce unfair and inecient contracts and that punish fraudsters advance fairness and eciency concerns.
In both contract law and tort law, it is often argued that governmental
regulation and law-imposed liability are unnecessary because reputational
constraints will suce to discipline contract breakers and tortfeasors.
Contracting parties will not commit fraud because it will ruin their reputation in the marketplace. Sellers will not market defective products because
word will spread and no one else will buy from them.
Because a rational person has concern for his or her long-term reputation, some economists have presumed that government regulation of
fraud is unneeded in securities and other markets. Repeat players must act
86
properly or else they will be punished. As just one example, Judge

Easterbrook, a leading law and economics scholar as well as a federal judge,
has opined that even in the face of a nancial scandal with a busted audit,
judges should presume that the auditors were not reckless because their
long-term reputational interest makes it irrational for them to do anything other than make their clients toe the line.58 Chapter 2 has demonstrated how reputational sanctions cannot produce an ecient level of
honesty, and behavioralism only enhances the economic problem.
Unfortunately, the past few years have made it surpassingly clear that too
many actors in our capital markets, perhaps because of time delay traps or
other problems with intertemporal decisionmaking, are more than willing
to sacrice long-term reputational capital for short-term nancial gain.
Corporations such as Enron, WorldCom, Global Crossing, HealthSouth,
and Tyco had wonderful reputations in the late 1990s. Enron was widely
known as the worlds most innovative company. WorldCom was a marvel
of the hot new telecommunications sector. Yet all these companies, and
many others, ruined their own reputations by nancial skullduggery. Enron
moved debt o its books and engaged in transactions designed to produce
the temporary appearance of income, ultimately costing its investors
US$70 billion. WorldCom inated earnings by US$11 billion. Global
Crossing collapsed under US$12.4 billion in debt that it had hidden. Quest
restated US$2.5 billion in revenue in 2000 and 2001. Indeed, 10 percent of
NYSE-listed companies had to restate their nancials between 1997 and
June 2002, and writeos of US$148 billion erased virtually all of the prots
reported by NASDAQ companies between 1995 and 2000. While recognizing that empirical studies show that there are long-term benets to building a reputation for providing reliable and timely disclosures, Professor
Dechow and colleagues noted after a recent empirical study that the
sample of rms investigated in this study chose to risk (and ultimately lose)
those benets for the prospect of short-term gain.59
Of course, the actions of corporations are really the actions of individuals. What about their reputational capital? Enron ocers sacriced their
long-term reputation in order to loot the rm of hundreds of millions of
dollars in bonuses and stock options that they pretended to earn by entering the rm into deals that ultimately lost billions and by fraudulently
inating the stock price through all manner of devious accounting maneuvers. Enrons outside directors damaged their own long-term reputations by
negligently and perhaps recklessly failing to detect the ocers shenanigans
and by foolishly waiving the rms conict-of-interest policy. Enrons law
rm also suered serious reputational injury when its attorneys forgot that
their ultimate loyalty was to the corporate entity and the shareholders
rather than to the individual ocers whom they aided and abetted in many
87
of their more spurious transactions. Stock analysts chose short-term lucre

over long-term reputation by publicly hyping (while privately condemning)
stocks of companies like WorldCom as their share price tanked, in order to
cultivate investment banking business for their employers.
In the face of such gatekeeping failures, one response is to take refuge in
mutual funds. However, even sophisticated investors were victimized nearly
as much as lay investors by the frauds of these various actors. In addition,
mutual funds have victimized unsophisticated investors in a wide variety of
ways. Former SEC head Arthur Levitt has termed some of these abuses
the most egregious violation of the public trust of any of the events of
recent years.60 There is substantial evidence that market timing abuses
were systemic, and that industry professionals knew about the abuses and
did nothing. Jack Bogle, founder of Vanguard Group, notes that increasingly everything in the fund industry is favoring the manager at the expense
of the shareholder.61
Nor can the reputational concern of auditors adequately protect
investors. While Judge Easterbrook assumes that auditors would not risk
their long-term reputations by acting recklessly, behavioral research provides a plethora of potential explanations for why reckless and fraudulent
auditing is hardly an infrequent occurrence. In addition to the rational
reasons discussed in Chapter 2, several explanations for auditor failings
arise from 30 years worth of behavioral research in accounting.62 Among
those are the following:
Conrmation bias: Numerous studies indicate that auditors are prone

to the conrmation bias and tend to perceive evidence and emphasize results that conrm their initial hypothesis, which is often established by the clients documents or their work from the previous
years audit.
Cognitive dissonance: Once an auditor has taken a public position by
certifying the accuracy of a clients nancial statements, it becomes
very dicult to process information that undermines the conclusion
that the client is in sound nancial shape and that its nancial statements accurately reect its nancial condition.
Memory limitations: As noted earlier, people are more likely to
remember facts that support their beliefs than facts that undermine
them. Memory of documents is extremely important to the audit
process, and problems can arise from this tendency to remember
selectively, especially because studies show that auditors are overcondent regarding the accuracy of their memories.
Undue optimism and overcondence: 83 percent of auditors, in one
study, believed that they possessed above average skills. Such
88
overcondence about their abilities and undue optimism about how

things will turn out for themselves and their clients can cause auditors to cut corners and thereby create problems.
Insensitivity to source: Studies indicate that auditors are better than
most people at discounting information that comes from questionable sources, however even they tend to overweight client-provided
explanations in situations where the client obviously has a strong
interest at stake.
False consensus eect: Because of the false consensus eect, honest
auditors, like other people, have diculty believing that the people
they deal with are dishonest. This tendency can cause major problems for an honest auditor with a crooked client.
Anchoring and adjustment: Innumerable studies show that peoples
judgments become easily anchored by irrelevant numbers. This
tendency can cause obvious problems for auditors who are often
anchored by the numbers provided by the client that they then must
audit.
Self-serving bias: As noted earlier, auditors and everyone else tend to
gather, process, and recall information in ways that advance their
own interests, even when they try to be fair. This bias is extremely
robust and studies show that auditors suer from it. For example,
studies show that if there is any question as to the appropriate
outcome auditors tend strongly to favor the client in order to keep the
client happy and the stream of revenue coming in. Even if there is a
strong conict between the client and the auditor as to an appropriate treatment for a transaction, the auditor tends to defer to the client
unless the client is in nancial trouble and thereby presents a
signicant litigation risk for the client.
Tangible vs. abstract: Not only does the time delay trap prevent
people from assessing future consequences rationally, auditors also
suer from the fact that if they stand up to their client they may cause
current, tangible harm to people whom they know and like, including their clients employees and their colleagues. The potential
victims of reckless auditing, on the other hand, are nameless and
faceless and may, after all, never materialize.
Put all these factors together and it is not terribly surprising that auditors act recklessly from time to time. As Professor Loewenstein has noted,
if one wanted to create a business setting that would virtually guarantee
unethical behavior, it would be dicult to improve on the existing case of
independent auditing.63 It is Pollyanna-ish to believe that the reputational
constraint is sucient in light of these behavioral tendencies.
89
Similar analyses could be done of each of the other gatekeepers who

dropped their respective balls during the Enron scandal. It should be clear
that it is easy to rest too much reliance on securities actors rational incentive to preserve their long-term reputations as a substitute for government
regulation. [T]here are limits to reputation.64 Reputation added to legal
constraints were insucient to prevent major frauds in the 1990s. Take
away the legal constraints, and things would have been much worse.
CORPORATE LAW AND BEHAVIORAL DECISION

THEORY
Behavioral analysis can inform many aspects of corporate law. In this
section, we touch upon a few. As noted in Chapter 2, the principal concern
of corporate law is solving the agency problem so that ocers and directors
will operate the corporation in the best interests of the shareholders.
Corporate law helps by imposing duciary obligations on the managers of
the corporation and punishing them for breach. Presumably this would be
unnecessary if the shareholders and promoters could simply bargain to an
optimally ecient result, but this is unrealistic for logistical reasons in public
corporations and unrealistic for behavioral reasons in smaller corporations.
Consider the investor who is asked to invest in a neighbors small but
growing corporation. The neighbor is a promoter and CEO. For reasons of
bounded rationality and rational ignorance, the investors investigation of
the companys condition will likely not be optimal. Judge Posner has
explained why information costs render ignorance rational:
Contracts are costly to make and . . . costs may well exceed the benets . . . when
the contingencies that would be regulated by contractdeath or personal injury
from using a productare extremely remote. [When a consumer purchases an
expensive item like a car] the greatest [contracting] cost [is] not the direct cost of
drafting; it [is] the cost of information. The inclusion of . . . a clause [specifying
rights and duties in the event of a remote contingency such as death or personal
injury] would not serve its intended purpose unless the consumer knew something about the costs of alternative safety measures that the producer might take
and about the safety of competing products and brands. But the cost of generating that information, and particularly the cost to the consumer of absorbing
it, may well be disproportionate to the benet of a negotiated (as distinct from
imposed-by-law) level of safety.65
If fraud seems a remote contingency to the investor, then the cost of an

optimal investigation of the investment will seem disproportionate to the
perceived benet. And if the investor likes the CEO he will probably, for
reasons of the false consensus eect, trust him too much. The investor is
90
unlikely to detect if he is being lied to, and to be overcondent in his conclusion that the promoter has been truthful. Once he has decided to trust
the promoter, he is unlikely to discount suciently representations made if
any evidence appears as to the untrustworthiness of the CEO. Cognitive
dissonance and belief persistence will impede his processing of information
that undermines his initial conclusion that the promoter is honest and that
the company is a promising one. Overcondence and undue optimism will
bolster this conclusion. All these factors put together paint a picture of a
vulnerable investor whose fate is uncomfortably in the hands of another. A
legal regime that imposes duties of loyalty upon the CEO and other managers and punishes violations provides protection for the investor that
would otherwise be lacking. In so doing, it encourages investment.
Professors Blair and Stout have pointed out that just as shareholders
cannot be omnipresent to monitor the stewardship of their investment,
neither can the law be everywhere (nor can it be perfectly enforced).66
Therefore, trust remains an important factor in the corporate governance
calculation. As those commentators note, however, trust derives largely
from social norms. The law dramatically impacts those norms. Professors
Donaldson and Dunfee point out that [o]utside sources may inuence the
development of norms. Law, particularly when it is perceived as legitimate
by members of a community, may have a major impact on what is considered to be correct behavior.67 Thus, when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed racial discrimination, peoples views of the acceptability of such
discrimination was signicantly altered. Because of the conformity bias,
what is considered correct behavior exerts a major inuence upon how
people act.
For present purposes, corporate law establishes that managers and directors are to act in the best interests not of themselves, but of shareholders.
In so doing, the law not only gives them external incentives in the form of
liability rules to act in this way, it also changes their internal preferences by
helping to establish trustworthy actions as the societal norm. Thousands of
cooperation games administered by psychologists over the years establish
that people are more willing to cooperate (irrationally, according to economic incentives) if they are instructed to do so, and/or if they believe that
others will cooperate (the conformity bias). The law instructs managers to
act in a duciary capacity and thereby increases the odds that they will do
so. This message is repeatedly sent to managers by judges who often
describe the managers duciary duty in the strongest terms. The law also
helps to establish the social norm, reinforcing the likelihood that managers
will choose to act as duciaries.
While contractarians argue that the duciary duty is just another in the
nexus of contracts that comprise corporate law, Blair and Stout argue
91
convincingly that it is much more. To allow managers to opt easily out of

the duciary duty via simple contract would undermine trust among corporate participants by implying that trustworthy behavior is not important,
not common, and not expected.68 Fortunately, most corporate law does
not allow such contracting out. As Blair and Stout note:
The phenomenon of trust behavior suggests that duciary relationships are
created by the law in situations in which it is ecient or otherwise desirable to
promote other-regarding, trusting and trustworthy behavior. Moreover, the key
to a successful duciary relationship lies in framing both economic and social
conditions so as to encourage the duciary to make a psychological commitment
to further her beneciarys welfare rather than her own. For example, by making
directors and ocers who violate their duty of loyalty to the rm liable for
damages, the law encourages trustworthy behavior in corporate duciaries by
reducing the expected gains from malfeasance (thus reducing the duciarys cost
of behaving trustworthily). At the same time, case law on the duty of loyalty
unambiguously signals that the duciary relationship is a social situation that
calls for other-regarding behavior, to the point where the duciary is discouraged
from even thinking about her own interest through a prophylactic rule that bans
unauthorized personal gains even in circumstances in which the duciary could
arrange this without harm to her beneciary. Similarly, the sermonizing tone
typically adopted by courts in duciary cases reinforces the social message that
other-regarding behavior is demanded.69
By setting up a system where shareholders believe they can trust managers

given the social norms (formed in part by the law) and the legal liabilities
(established by the law), investors do not have to expend substantial time,
eort, and money to investigate whether their managers do or do not purport
to act in the investors best interests, avoiding an information externality
created if contracting out of the duciary relationship is permitted.70
The agency problem is composed not just of intentional wrongdoing by
managers. Behavioral considerations highlight numerous other pitfalls
that make corporate law extremely helpful for disciplining managers, compensating investors, and encouraging investment. Consider the subject of
executive compensation. Because of the self-serving bias and general
overcondence, ocers tend to think that they are worth what they are
being paid, especially because the high compensation that other ocers
were receiving indicated through the conformity bias that this was the
appropriate standard and because reference-dependent utility made the
matter important to the managers. Numerous abuses have ensued, in part
because incentive compensation was largely untethered from actual rm
performance. Stock option grants tend to be timed to precede favorable
rm-specic news announcements, allowing company executives to prot
arguably unfairly.71 Stock options that were under water because of poor
92
performance were often repriced. At the highest levels, CEO compensation

alone absorbed most corporate prots at some companies that were doing
comparatively well.72
Because of the same behavioral considerations, such as the conformity
bias and undue optimism aecting the judgments of directors, current corporate law rules were insucient to prevent tremendous abuses. However,
in the absence of duciary duties, the situation would likely have been many
times worse. One of the Sarbanes-Oxley Acts corporate governance provisions requires ocers and directors of companies that have to restate their
earnings (323 public companies in 2003) to forfeit their stock prots and
bonuses gained on the basis of the bogus numbers. Before this provision,
often companies would announce record prots, the ocers would pocket
record bonuses, the companies would later restate their nancials, but the
ocers would retain the unearned bonuses. Sarbanes-Oxleys forfeiture
provision changes that situation.
When contemplating why 300 companies a year are restating their
nancial statements, again consider the possibility that not all are blatant
frauds. Because of the behavioral factors noted above, it is possible that the
top brass of companies often times really believe (or talk themselves into
believing) that their rms are doing well. Professor Langevoort used behavioral analysis to suggest that in organizations, optimistic, self-condent,
can-do people tend to be promoted and that people prefer to send good
news up the corporate ladder over bad news. When biased information is
fed to unduly optimistic, overcondent managers who suer from the illusion of control, they often end up misperceiving risks and harboring unrealistically optimistic views about their companys status and prospectus.
The self-serving bias also helps these ocers to see what they wish to see,
especially if they have previously committed to a particular course of
action. Sunk cost eects and cognitive dissonance can make it particularly
dicult to change course.73
All of these are dicult biases to overcome, but Sarbanes-Oxleys section
404 provision for internal controls could help. It is a corporate governance
provision aimed primarily at improving the odds that full and accurate information relating to the nancial situation of the company will rise to the top
of the corporate chain of command. Perfection will never be achieved, but a
corporate governance provision such as this, coupled with the duciary
duties imposed upon ocers and directors, should improve the quality of
corporate decisionmaking over what would occur in their absence.
The most dicult aspect in all of this is striking the proper balance.
Managers must be constrained and monitored to ensure that they are
working in the best interests of shareholders. At the same time, if monitoring
is excessive, managers cannot work eciently. Economists Easterbrook and
93
Fischel propose an eciency rationale for the business judgment rulethe

courts refusal (with rare exception) to second-guess the decisions of a
companys managers unless there exists a conict of interest.74 There is a
behavioral reason as wellthe hindsight bias. Courts realize that not only are
they not business experts, but they should not impose liability upon managers
for merely careless decisions based on second-guessing those managers with
the benet of 2020 hindsight.75
SECURITIES LAW AND BEHAVIORAL DECISION

THEORY
The securities industry is so rife with potential conicts of interest that
only the most strident of SEC opponents propose that the SEC deregulate
investment advisers, stockbrokers, stock exchanges, and other industry
actors. Honest actors in these industries oppose full deregulation. Because
of the self-serving bias, even investment advisers, stockbrokers, or stock
analysts who tried to be honest and objective would have great diculty
doing so. In most instances, their interests are ill-aligned with those of
their customers and the results are often greatly damaging to investors
interests.
Consider, for example, stockbrokers.76 Is the reputational constraint
sucient to ensure that brokers act in the best interests of their clients?
While it is generally in investors interests to buy high quality stocks and
hold them for the long term, stockbrokers do not make much money that
way. It is in the brokers interests to persuade their clients to do some trades
from time to time. And that is just the beginning of the conicts of interest. The brokers make more money if the products they convince investors
to buy are house products or riskier products, regardless of whether they
are the best products or the best t for the investors risk prole. On Wall
Street, where bonuses are in the millions of dollars, there are strong rational reasons to push the limits of normative behavior.77
The reality of practice reveals one Morgan Stanley employee expressing
enjoyment at ripping [the clients] face o78 and Salomon Brothers
employees becoming minor heroes in their oces by blowing up their
customers by selling them low quality securities that Salomon wished to
dump out of its own portfolio;79 Dean Witter selling US$2 billion of high
risk bond funds by targeting elderly clients and misrepresenting the funds
as safe and secure investments;80 large numbers of brokers convincing
elderly people to purchase variable annuities inappropriate for their
needs,81 and Republic New York Securities Corporation assisting a
nancial adviser in bilking more than 100 institutional investors out of
94
US$700 million even though the president of its futures division stated on
tape that a doofus ipping a . . . coin every day would have had more
success than the adviser (who lost US$556 million while trading).82
Among the reasons for the inadequacy of the reputational constraint for
remedying the misalignment of interest between broker and customer is
that even when brokers pursue their own interests at their clients expense,
their reputations may not suer much or at all. During the bubble of the
1990s, the stock market rose so dramatically that it was dicult for even
dishonest and incompetent brokers to lose money for their clients. Because
people make decisions in relation to a reference point,83 investors tend to
be much more upset if they lose money in an absolute sense than if they are
simply not making as much money as other investors.
Additionally, because of cognitive dissonance and other factors,
investors often will remember having made more money than they truly
did. Studies show that investors frequently remember that their mutual
fund performed better than it really did. Even if they do notice that their
broker has done a poor job, regret theory predicts that they will often not
complain. If they did, it would highlight in their own mind the mistake they
made in hiring this broker and they would suer regret that they would just
as soon avoid. Even if investors do notice the poor decisions made by their
brokers and do complain, the ability of any rm to trade on its reputation
depends on appearance rather than fact. By shunting claims to arbitration
and settling cases without admitting or denying wrongdoing, rms are able
to minimize the publicity for many of their brokers wrongs. Due to the
availability heuristic, investors bombarded with advertisements about the
reliability of a brokerage rm are likely to believe them despite the occasional public report of a problem, especially because most other rms that
a customer might choose to do business with may have recently been
involved in scandals as well.
A nal point is that most stockbrokers leave the industry within three
years of starting. How can they be concerned with their long-term reputational capital? Even if they plan on staying around, [r]eputational sanctions also have limited eect on especially venal parties.84 The bottom line
is that empirical evidence indicates that the reputational constraint aects
brokers, but weakly.85 Legal regulation is needed as an important supplement. Similar analyses could be done regarding investment advisers, stock
analysts, stock exchanges, and other professional securities actors.
Corporate Disclosure
Mandatory disclosure is aif not thedening characteristic of US
securities regulation.86 The primary justication for mandatory disclosure
95
is economic, not behavioral. Still, behavioral insights can be valuable. The

optimistic, condent managers who interpret the world through a selfserving lens (like everyone else) will tend to believe that they are only hindered by the oversight of others. They will view disclosure as only a
hindrance not a help.
In a recent thought experiment involving a hypothetical country
without a securities law regime, Professor Bainbridge examined behavioral
factors in order to determine whether full disclosure would evolve on
its own. While he is a critic of the US mandatory disclosure system,87
Bainbridge made some points that suggest that full disclosure would not
come about on its own. Bainbridge rst notes that the intense tendency
people have toward conformity can cause even seemingly rational decisionmakers to engage in herd behavior, to imitate the actions of others
rather than utilizing ones own information and judgment. He notes that
herd behavior may be particularly common in markets with inadequate disclosure by rms.88 Bainbridge suggests several reasons why voluntary disclosure might be suboptimalnot emphasizing one of the most obvious:
that the companys managers want to minimize oversight. Given a herd
mentality that reinforces a practice of minimal disclosure and no strong
reason for voluntary disclosure to increase, Bainbridge observes that a
mandatory disclosure rule could have three benecial eects by (a) beginning a cascade of disclosure by shifting the disclosure norm, (b) making
disclosure credible by adding an antifraud feature, and (c) providing a standard around which disclosure practices can cluster. As noted in Chapter 2,
one of the most powerful benets of a mandated disclosure system is the
comparability of data that a legal requirement can best provide.
Bainbridge points out that if corporate managers are used to nondisclosure or limited disclosure, the habit heuristic, the status quo bias, the
anchoring eect, the endowment eect, loss aversion, and regret aversion
would all inuence them to hew close to the established standard of
minimal disclosure.89 All of these factors cause people to make decisions
where the current regime is a heavily inuential reference point. While
Bainbridge suggests that there is little evidence that the status quo bias is a
serious problem in US capital markets, the existence of this bias has been
repeatedly demonstrated and is extremely robust. When Samuelson and
Zeckhauser gave subjects several dierent ways to allocate a portfolio of
securities they had inherited from their uncle, alternatives became more
attractive as soon as they were designated as the status quo and the more
alternatives there were, the stronger was the eect.90 There is every reason
to believe that the status quo eect would impact the decisions of corporations regarding how much to disclose, just as it has been shown along with
anchoring and adjustment to impact the decisions of auditors who tend to
96
pattern this years audit plan after last years audit plan,91 which can give
dishonest clients a road map for cloaking their fraud.
Finally, Professor Bainbridge observes that social norms aect decisionmakers.92 If the norm among companies is not to disclose, is it not more
dicult for full disclosure to evolve? Bainbridge suggests that legal reform
probably could not precede cultural change in most societies, especially
since managers of companies have substantial political inuence. This is a
fair point but in other nations legal change may well happen as it does in
the United Statesan episode of major corruption or a traumatic break in
the markets can create the conditions needed for political change. That is
how the 1933 and 1934 Acts and Sarbanes-Oxley Act were passed. We have
seen how a change in the law can indeed alter norms, as in passage of the
Civil Rights Acts. Indeed, full disclosure was not the norm in America
before the 1933 and 1934 securities laws were passed, but quickly became
the norm thereafter. Before 1933, prospectuses in America were little more
than notices. Afterwards, issuers soon embraced the full disclosure norm,
although perhaps not enthusiastically. The law created a requirement that
was followed under the pain of liability, and gave rise to a norm, such that
even domestic issuers in exempt oerings and foreign issuers operating
under their own exemptions often provide prospectus-like disclosure today.
They do so not because the law requires it, but because it has become the
expectation, what investors are used to seeing. By setting the standard for
registered domestic public oerings, Congress actually raised the disclosure
bar in many other settings.
Bainbridge suggests that because the legal requirement of full disclosure
has become the norm in America there is no longer justication for mandatory disclosure in the United States. It is in fact likely that if mandatory disclosure were repealed, social norms, the status quo bias, and other factors
would ensure that voluntary disclosure would remain substantial. But, in
the absence of the reinforcement of legal requirements, it would likely
decay over time although it is unlikely that it would ever sink to pre-1933
levels. And obviously the rst to start disclosing less would be the companies that have bad news. Investors would realize this, of course, but typically would not discount for it suciently. If the law has successfully
created a valuable norm, that is not much of an argument for abolishing
the law, at least given its relatively low cost.
For all the reasons just explored, it is dicult for corporate managers to
choose to fully disclose in the absence of legal requirements. It is true that
even if the law does not require disclosure, managers might choose to do it
voluntarily if sucient pressure were exerted by investors. However, behavioral analysis not only indicates why issuers will not voluntarily disclose
information at an optimal level, it also explains why investors will not
97
necessarily demand such disclosure before investing. The same behavioral

factors discussed in the corporate governance section that might well
induce a person to invest in a neighbors corporation without providing
for any protection from breach of duciary duty will also often lead to
an investment decision made upon the basis of inadequate disclosure.
Cognitive conservativism in the form of rational ignorance, undue optimism, and overcondence, the illusion of control, and other factors can all
lead investors to pay their money without being given full disclosure.
Investors, like everyone else, view the status quo as the standard reference
point. If minimal disclosure is the standard, investors tend to anchor on it
and not to demand much more. Why, after all, should an investor who
trusts a promoter to be honest and not cheat him require that promoter to
go to the expense of producing audited nancial statements and other
expensive disclosure materials?
Fraud Protection
The other bulwark of federal securities laws, in addition to mandatory disclosure, is fraud protection. Both the 1933 and 1934 Acts forbid misrepresentation in the purchasing and selling of securities and section 10(b) of the
1934 Act, the statutes key antifraud provision, is quite likely the most
inuential securities law provision ever enacted. Congresss main goal in
passing the 1933 and 1934 Acts was to restore condence in the integrity of
the securities markets so that investors would return to play the game.
The Congressional instinct was a sound one. Studies of trust, cooperation,
and social dilemmas establish that people will cooperate and trust if they
believe others will cooperate and trust. But trust is a fragile commodity.
People wish to avoid being a sucker.93 They will not play if they believe
the game is crooked.
If fully-informed, rational investors invested in ecient markets where
securities sellers were adequately constrained by reputational concerns,
there would arguably be little need for securities regulation. Unfortunately,
those conditions do not obtain in real markets. Therefore, it is questionable
whether the SEC should sit on the sidelines and allow investors to bargain
for their desired level of fraud protection or be able to choose a legal regime
that contains their desired level of fraud protection. Even those who are the
strongest believers in private ordering usually agree that public enforcement
mechanisms are needed to investigate fraud claims and punish wrongdoers.
But they trust that investors will bargain for their desired level of disclosure
and their desired level of fraud protection. In addition to ignoring the
transaction costs associated with such individualized bargaining, behavioralism demonstrates the deciencies of reliance on such bargaining.
98
The next chapter will indicate that history contradicts the assumptions
of purely private ordering. But consider a contemporary scenario in which
a promoter of ABC Co. makes glowing oral representations to an investor
about ABC. Those oral representations convince the investor that he
should buy the stock. The promoter then produces a form contract. One
thing that is extremely unlikely to happen at this point is for the investor to
refuse to buy the stock unless the promoter provides just the level of
antifraud protection that the investor desires. The investor might desire a
negligence or recklessness standard of liability. The promoter might prefer
that he be liable only if he acted with scienter. The promoter might wish to
require that all claims be arbitrated, while the investor might wish to have
the right to go before a jury.
Despite the parties dierent desires, the most likely thing that will
happen is not a haggling over these terms. Instead, it is mostly likely that
the investor will sign the contract, even if it contains a provision stating that
ABC Company and its agents make no representations other than those
contained in writing in this document and the investor acknowledges that
he is relying on no other statements and that this document represents the
entire agreement between the parties.
Because Congress understood human nature and the fact that any conman who could induce an investor to put money into a bogus deal also had
a good chance to convince the investor to waive any antifraud rights he
enjoyed, it placed in both the 1933 Securities Act and the 1934 Securities
Exchange Act provisions that sought to prevent investors from waiving
rights accorded them by the Acts. Most courts have refused to enforce such
waivers as inconsistent with the antiwaiver provisions of the 1933 and 1934
Acts, but a substantial number of courts have enforced them, functionally
allowing investors to waive any substantive protection from securities fraud.
But why would seemingly rational investors blithely sign away their
rights? Why do they so often elect to sign contracts that give them no protection from fraud? Why are they unlikely to bargain for just the right
level of antifraud protection? The short answer is: For the same reasons
that product consumers bought products such as automobiles under contracts that contained virtually no warranties and no signicant protection
from defective products before courts and legislatures devised modern
product liability law. The longer answer requires a little more behavioral
analysis.94 Contemplate these behavioral considerations, among many
others that could be discussed:
Rational ignorance: Whether renting a car or purchasing securities, few

people read form contracts that are placed before them. Often they are
told by the other party that the contracts just contain boilerplate
99
and they should not bother to read them. Usually they are dealing with
a sellers agent who does not have the authority to bargain over their
terms anyway. As Judge Posner has noted, the information costs of
reading a form contract typically make it not worth the time to do so.95
Overcondence, undue optimism, and illusion of control: People tend
to believe that they are better than they really are at judging character, that the bad things like being victimized by fraudsters that
happen to other people will not happen to them and that they can
control situations that are not truly controllable, such as by selecting
the seller of the securities they buy. For these reasons, as Ribstein has
noted, [i]nvestors, like others, may be overly optimistic in the sense
of discounting risks, including the risk of fraud.96 These factors
often cause investors to sign contracts that irrationally waive protection from fraud because they believe that they will not be victims of
fraud. Studies show that when asked about the contracts that they
have signed people believe that they are more favorable to them than
they actually are.
Probabilities and future events: As noted earlier, most people are not
particularly good at calculating probabilities, often substituting ruleof-thumb heuristics for more rigorous statistical analysis. They tend
especially to ignore low probability risks, such as the chance that the
seller of their securities is ripping them o, even when large amounts
of money are at stake. Just like product purchasers, investors in securities seldom consider that they might have to bring a lawsuit later on
to vindicate their rights.
False consensus eect and personal positivity bias: As noted earlier,
both false consensus eect, which causes honest people to believe
that others are honest as well, and the personal positivity bias, which
causes people to generally view others favorably, work together to
lead people to be insuciently wary of fraud. Because these tendencies are reinforced by the concept of cognitive dissonance, once
investors decide that they wish to do business with a particular promoter or stockbroker, they will have great diculty properly processing information that begins to indicate that that promoter or
stockbroker is a crook.
Inability to detect deception: Peoples belief that they can detect when
they are being lied to, coupled with their typical utter inability to do
so, often causes them to be insuciently cautious regarding fraud. In
business, lies are particularly hard to detect because people regard
lies as part of playing a complex game.97 If people just know
that they are not being lied to, they will be unduly willing to sign a
contract waiving protection from fraud.
100
Insensitivity to source: As noted earlier, even when people are told

that those they are dealing with are unreliable or have an incentive to
deceive them, they are not adept at taking that information into
account in their decisionmaking. They may adjust in the right direction some of their conclusions, but typically not nearly far enough in
the right direction.
Salience of oral communications: It is a simple fact that people nd
oral communications to be much more salient than written communications. The oral representations that a sales representative makes
tend to drown out substantially any written disclaimers of those
representations.
Status quo bias: As noted earlier, all things being equal, people prefer
the status quo. When a seller of securities hands the buyer a form
contract, that contract represents the status quo. It anchors the
buyers judgment. A dense form contract has an authoritative legality98 about it that induces deference and makes it unlikely that the
buyer will bargain over terms. Consistent with the eects of the status
quo bias, Choi and Gulati have found that even the most sophisticated investors often adopt contract provisions not out of preference
but because they are the standard provisions.99
For all these reasons and others, it is easy to see why investors did not
before securities regulation existed and likely would not today adequately
bargain for antifraud protection. For reasons noted immediately above,
people are not facile at telling when they are being lied to and not adept
at accurately adjusting their conclusions when they learn that the source
of information upon which they are relying is not trustworthy. Therefore,
their adjustment in price will typically be insucient to account for the
risk of fraud they face. There are no formulas that can be applied or computer programs that can be run to accurately adjust the price of the securities to compensate for the risk of fraud. How does one eciently
discount the dierence between a recklessness standard and a negligence
standard, between an arbitration clause and the right to a jury trial?
Professor Sale has pointed out that the markets did not accurately
discount for the possibility of gatekeeper failure in the 1990s,100
and Professor Choi admits that unsophisticated investors would probably not be able to value dierent protective devices that issuers might
adopt.101
Eective antifraud provisions are therefore necessary and ecient
private ordering cannot restrain fraud. Because of behavioral tendencies,
people do not always rationally play the game as described above in Figure
2.1. Many invest notwithstanding the risk of fraud, and some of them suer
101
the consequences of fraud. For others who are more cautious, behavioral
concerns such as regret theory and loss aversion mean that no investment
will take place, as in Figure 2.1. The more fraud that transpires at the
expense of the risk-taking population simply highlights to the cautious the
dangers of placing their savings in equity securities.
THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT

This chapters discussion has thus far aimed primarily at demonstrating
that behavioral considerations can clarify some of the strengths and
weaknesses of economic analysis of private ordering. Law and economic
analysis does not have a single prescription, but those forms that have
been used to argue in favor of substantially less or no securities regulation
are based on various premises that behavioral evidence greatly undermines. Investors are not as rational and securities professionals concerns for reputation are not as potent as many have supposed. That said,
behavioral considerations do not automatically validate securities regulation or easily guide us to conclusions about what form securities laws
should take.
Lawmakers who pass statutes and bureaucrats who supplement them
with rules and enforce them are also humans with all the foibles
overcondence, undue optimism, honoring of sunk costsof others. Just
as an audit rm that has hired several new auditors and trained them for a
large client that is an energy company will have diculty ushing that
investment in the face of evidence that the energy company is an extremely
high risk client which is probably transgressing important accounting rules,
so will a securities agency that has established a branch to regulate a particular activity have diculty making the decision to eliminate that branch
and reassign its employees in the face of evidence that the regulation is
simply not accomplishing its goal.102
At a minimum, behavioral considerations should be used to analyze
current disclosure rules to determine how they can be improved. The
amount and form of disclosures can no doubt be improved by behavioral
analysis. Behavioral considerations arguably counsel for greater expenditures by the government for investor education even while they provide a
sobering assessment of the limits of the improvement that education can
bring. The virtue of government action is not that it is free of behavioral
shortcomings but that the imperfect government action may nonetheless
combat private behavioral shortcomings and produce a more ecient
market. Perhaps the main problem of government action is that it does not
go far enough to combat the limitations of private ordering.
102
Political concerns can minimize the eectiveness of securities regulation. There is substantial evidence that the SEC was not active enough in
the 1990s. Because of political pressure, it was underfunded, understaed,
and under the gun in many situations when it tried to improve corporate
performance. As an example, in 2000, the SEC compromised in a battle
with the Big Five auditing rms and allowed them to continue providing
consulting services to audit clients. Just about the only concession the
SEC extracted from the politically-charged battle was a requirement that
the clients disclose in their proxy statements all the fees that they paid to
their auditors. The amounts disclosed showed shocking levels of consulting fees and clearly should have drawn into question the independence of
these auditors. But, of course, the discussion earlier in the chapter
explained that when investors learn of the questionable nature of a source
of information, they tend not to accurately discount the information
itself. In light of what happened with Enron, WorldCom, Global
Crossing, and all the others, it appears that the eventual ban on most
consulting services enacted in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act should have been
instituted earlier.
The SEC has the benet of a decisional process that eectively gathers
information from all points of view. The Commission also has signicant
formal and informal avenues of communication with the securities industry, ensuring that it has the input and often the support of market professionals it seeks to regulate. The Commissions sta generally keeps in close
contact with those it regulates via informal meetings with securities professionals.
When new rules are considered, the SEC has a decisionmaking process
that insures substantial infusion of the views of all parties. Unlike an individual decisionmaker prone to the conrmation bias, seeking out only
information that supports preexisting views, the Commission publishes
proposed rules, has a lengthy comment period, examines and responds to
the comments. If a controversial rule is proposed, literally thousands of
comments may be lodged by advocates and opponents, investors and securities professionals, academics of all viewpoints, and many others. The
process often results in the Commission substantially adjusting, amending,
or even scrapping its original proposals. The fact that the Commission itself
must contain members from both major political parties also helps to foster
the give and take that improves the decisionmaking process.
Additionally, the SEC uses two simple decisional heuristics that have
served it well over the years: (1) disclosure is good; and (2) fraud is bad.
These are the very heuristics that help combat the shortcomings of purely
private ordering. Although it is certainly true that too much disclosure can
be inecient and that too many resources could be invested in trying to
103
deter or punish fraud, as a matter of rst principles the SEC is on pretty

solid ground.
CONCLUSION
In our imperfect world behavioral decision theory makes it clear that
investors do not typically demand full disclosure or protect themselves adequately from fraud, even within the constraints of limited information and
transaction costs. And corporate ocers and directors sometimes fail to
fully disclose, breach their duciary duties, and even commit securities
fraud. Sometimes these actions serve their own rational interests; other
times they are simply manifestations of poor intertemporal decisionmaking or bounded will power.
In a world populated by imperfect decisionmakers, law can advance fairness goals and market eciency. For example, corporate law encourages the
trust that is so critical to investment by helping establish the social norms
that signal proper conduct for managers. Legislation changes what people
believe about approval patterns in their society and because people value
approval (the conformity bias), their new beliefs lead to dierent behaviors.103 When Congress twice in the 1980s passed legislation to punish
insider trading, peoples views of the acceptability of that practice changed.
When the SEC bans misleading and manipulative conduct, nancial
morality evolves.104 These unfair and inecient acts become less acceptable
and people become less likely to engage in them for both legal and moral
reasons. In Professor Welles words, [b]y prohibiting fraud and mandating
disclosure, the securities laws protect investors and promote honesty, trust,
and ethical behavior in commercial transactions. The securities laws set
standards that serve to socialize, to educate and to direct individuals toward
more morally appropriate forms of behavior.105 It is widely acknowledged
that when Congress legislated against securities fraud by passing the 1933
and 1934 Securities Acts, the level of such fraud was reduced.106
No mechanism of social control is perfect and there will be times, as
during the dot.com bubble, when substantial numbers of actors will forget
the rules. It will seem that earnings management is at least kind of ok
because so many competitors are doing it. Bullying auditors into accepting
aggressive accounting measures wont seem so bad, because others actions
are sending the cues that this is acceptable. Round-tripping by telecom
companies and manipulating deregulated markets by energy traders will
temporarily become accepted within the industry. Then it takes action,
such as passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, to remind economic actors
what the social and legal norms truly are.107
104
NOTES
1. Conlisk notes: There is a mountain of experiments in which people: display intransitivity; misunderstand statistical independence; mistake random data for patterned
data and vice versa; fail to appreciate law of large number eects; fail to recognize statistical dominance; make errors in updating probabilities on the basis of new information; understate the signicance of given sample sizes; fail to understand
covariation for even the simplest 22 contingency tables; make false inferences about
causality; ignore relevant information; use irrelevant information (as in sunk cost fallacies); exaggerate the importance of vivid over pallid evidence; exaggerate the importance of fallible predictors; exaggerate the ex ante probability of a random event
which has already occurred; display overcondence in judgment relative to evidence;
exaggerate conrming over disconrming evidence relative to initial beliefs; give
answers that are highly sensitive to logically irrelevant changes in questions; do redundant and ambiguous tests to conrm an hypothesis at the expense of decisive tests to
disconrm; make frequent errors in deductive reasoning tasks such as syllogisms;
place higher value on an opportunity if an experimenter rigs it to be the status quo
opportunity; fail to discount the future consistently; fail to adjust repeated choices to
accommodate intertemporal connections; and more. John Conlisk, Why Bounded
Rationality?, 34 J. ECON. LIT. 669, 670 (1996). See also Larry T. Garvin, Adequate
Assurance of Performance: Of Risk, Duress, and Cognition, 69 U. COLO. L. REV. 71,
145 (1998) (Cognitive psychology and experimental economics have found a smorgasbord of cognitive errors, which collectively falsify most of the axioms of rational
choice theory.).
2. See BOUNDED RATIONALITY: THE ADAPTIVE TOOLBOX (Gerd Gigerenzer &
Reinhard Selten eds. 1999).
3. See THE ECONOMICS OF IRRATIONAL BEHAVIOR (Francesco Parisi & Vernon
Smith eds. forthcoming).
4. Herbert A. Simon, ADMINISTRATIVE BEHAVIOR xxiv (2d ed. 1957).
5. Max H. Bazerman, JUDGMENT IN MANAGERIAL DECISION MAKING 3941
(3d ed. 1994).
6. Leon Festinger, A THEORY OF COGNITIVE DISSONANCE (1957).
7. See Antonio R. Damasio, DESCARTES ERROR (1994).
8. See Werner F.M. De Bondt, A Portrait of the Individual Investor, 42 EUR. ECON. REV.
831 (1998).
9. Robert J. Shiller, IRRATIONAL EXUBERANCE 143 (2000).
10. Barbara Moses, Research Analysts Under Fire, ALI-ABA Broker Dealer Regulation
Course study (January 1011, 2002).
11. See Roni Michaely & Kent L. Womack, Conict of Interest and the Credibility of
Underwriter Analyst Recommendations, 12 REV. FIN. STUD. 653 (1999).
12. See Andrei Shleifer, INEFFICIENT MARKETS: AN INTRODUCTION TO
BEHAVIORAL FINANCE 187 (2000).
13. Irving L. Janis, GROUPTHINK: PSYCHOLOGICAL STUDIES OF POLICY DECISIONS AND FIASCOES 9 (2d ed. 1982).
14. See Max Sutherland, ADVERTISING AND THE MIND OF THE CONSUMER 21
(1993).
15. Showing Fidelity, FINANCIAL TIMES, June 9, 2004, at 14.
16. See Brad M. Barger, et al., OUT OF SIGHT, OUT OF MIND: THE EFFECTS OF
EXPENSES ON MUTUAL FUND FLOWS 1 (December 2003), available at
http://ssrn.com/abstract496315.
17. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under
Uncertainty, 47 ECONOMETRICA 263 (1979).
18. See Richard H. Thaler, Mental Accounting Matters, in ADVANCES IN BEHAVIORAL
ECONOMICS 75, 99 (Colin F. Camerer, George Loewenstein & Matthew Rabin eds.
2004).
105
19. Hal R. Arkes & Catherine Blumer, The Psychology of Sunk Cost, 35 ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAV. & HUM. DECISION PROCESSES 124 (1985).
20. TIME AND DECISION: ECONOMIC AND PSYCHOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES
ON INTERTEMPORAL CHOICE (George Loewenstein, Daniel Read & Roy F.
Baumeister eds. 2003).
21. Reinier H. Kraakman, Corporate Liability Strategies and the Costs of Legal Controls, 93
YALE L. J. 857, 888 (1984).
22. See Robert A. Prentice, Chicago Man, K-T Man, and the Future of Behavioral Law and
Economics, 56 VAND. L. REV. 1663, 16961702 (2003).
23. See Gary W. Emery, CORPORATE FINANCE: PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICE
600603 (1998).
24. Michael C. Jensen, Some Anomalous Evidence Regarding Market Eciency, 6 J. FIN.
ECON. 95 (1978).
25. See Richard H. Thaler, THE WINNERS CURSE (1992); QUASI-RATIONAL
ECONOMICS (1991); ADVANCES IN BEHAVIORAL FINANCE (R. Thaler ed.
1993).
26. See ADVANCES IN BEHAVIORAL ECONOMICS (Colin F. Camerer, George
Loewenstein, & Matthew Rabin eds. 2004).
27. Stephen C. Choi & A.C. Pritchard, Behavioral Economics and the SEC, 56 STAN. L.
REV. 1, 5 (2003).
28. Sholom Benartzi & Richard H. Thaler, Myopic Loss Aversion and the Equity Premium
Puzzle, 110 Q. J. ECON. 73 (1995).
29. Terrance Odean, Do Investors Trade Too Much?, 89 AM. ECON. REV. 1279 (1999).
30. See Richard Deaves, et al., AN EXPERIMENTAL TEST OF THE IMPACT OF
OVERCONFIDENCE AND GENDER ON TRADING ACTIVITY 21 (2003), available at http://ssrn.com/abstract497284.
31. Terrance Odean, Are Investors Reluctant to Realize Their Losses?, 53 J. FIN. 1775 (1998).
32. Dale Grin & Amos Tversky, The Weighing of Evidence and the Determination of
Condence, 24 COG. PSYCHOL. 411 (1992).
33. Nick Barberis, Andrei Shleifer & Robert Vishny, A Model of Investor Sentiment, 49 J.
FIN. ECON. 307 (1998).
34. Larry E. Ribstein, Market vs. Regulatory Responses to Corporate Fraud: A Critique of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 28 IOWA J. CORP. L. 1, 2223 (2002).
35. Lynn A. Stout, The Unimportance of Being Ecient: An Economic Analysis of Stock
Market Pricing and Securities Regulation, 87 MICH. L. REV. 613, 647 (1988).
36. See Riva D. Atlas, Even the Smart Money Can Slip Up, N.Y. TIMES, December 30, 2001,
sec. 3, at 1.
37. See Robert A. Prentice, Chicago Man, K-T Man, and the Future of Behavioral Law and
Economics, 56 VANDERBILT LAW REVIEW 1663, 172829 (2004).
38. Hersh Shefrin, BEYOND GREED AND FEAR: UNDERSTANDING BEHAVIORAL FINANCE AND THE PSYCHOLOGY OF INVESTING 58 (2000).
39. Jacob Jacoby, Is It Rational to Assume Consumer Rationality? Some Consumer
Psychological Perspectives on Rational Choice Theory 23, N.Y. Univ. Ctr. for Law &
Bus., Working Paper #CLB-00009, 2000.
40. Robert J. Shiller, IRRATIONAL EXUBERANCE 379400 (2000).
41. Robert J. Shiller, Bubbles, Human Judgment, And Expert Opinion 23, 11 Cowles Found.,
Discussion Paper No. 1303 (May 2001).
42. Werner de Bondt, EARNINGS FORECASTS AND SHARE PRICE REVERSALS
(1992).
43. Henry Hu, Misunderstood Derivatives: The Causes of Informational Failure and the
Promise of Regulatory Incrementalism, 102 YALE L. J. 1457, 1489 (1993).
44. Ronald Coase, The Problem of Social Cost, 3 J. L. & ECON. 1 (1960).
45. Cass R. Sunstein, Looking Forward: Behavioral Analysis of Law, 64 U. CHI. L. REV.
1175, 1179 (1997) (The [Coase] theory is wrong because the allocation of the legal entitlement may well matter, in the sense that those who are initially allocated an entitlement
are likely to value it more than those without the legal entitlement.).
106
46. See Cass R. Sunstein, Switching the Default Rule, 77 N.Y.U. L. REV. 106, 112 (2002)
(making this point).
47. Most people have a strong preference for the status quo. See e.g., Colin Camerer,
Prospect Theory in the Wild, in CHOICES, VALUES, AND FRAMES 295 (Daniel
Kahneman & Amos Tversky eds. 2000) (nding that motorists choices of insurance coverage were signicantly aected by default legislative rules); Raymond S. Hartman, et al.,
Consumer Rationality and the Status Quo, 106 Q. J. ECON. 141, 160 (1991) (nding that
electricity consumers given a choice between higher rates with higher reliability service
and lower rates with lower reliability tended to choose whichever choice was presented
as representing the status quo); William F. Samuelson & Richard Zeckhauser, Status
Quo Bias in Decision Making, 1 J. RISK & UNCERTAINTY 7, 2633 (1988) (nding
that people tend to select whichever investment alternative or health plan is presented as
the status quo); Maurice Schweitzer, Disentangling Status Quo and Omission Eects: An
Experimental Analysis, 58 ORG. BEHAV. & HUM. DECISION PROCESSES 457,
47273 (1994) (reporting experiments nding that people prefer both the status quo and
inaction and that these preferences can be additive).
48. Robert A. Prentice & Jonathan J. Koehler, A Normality Bias in Legal Decision Making,
88 CORNELL L. REV. 583 (2003); John S. Hammond, Ralph L. Keeney, & Howard
Raia, The Hidden Traps in Decision Making, HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW 47
(SeptemberOctober 1998).
49. See David Cohen & Jack L. Knetsch, Judicial Choice and Disparities Between Measures
of Economic Values, 30 OSGOODE HALL L.J. 737 (1992).
50. See Russell Korobkin, The Status Quo Bias and Contract Default Rules, 83 CORNELL
L. REV. 608 (1998).
51. See G. Richard Shell, Fair Play, Consent and Securities Arbitration: A Comment on
Speidel, 62 BROOK. L. REV. 1365, 136769 (1996).
52. Francesco Parisi & Vernon Smith, THE LAW AND ECONOMICS OF IRRATIONAL
BEHAVIOR: AN INTRODUCTION 5 (2004), available at http://ssrn.com/
abstract537784.
53. See Ernst Fehr & Simon Gachter, Fairness and Retaliation: The Economics of
Reciprocity, J. ECON. PERSP. 159 Summer 2000.
54. E. Allan Farnsworth, CONTRACTS 2, 1314 (1982).
55. Id. at 326.
56. Id. at 232.
57. See Evelin Sullivan, THE CONCISE BOOK OF LYING 206 (2001).
58. DiLeo v. Ernst & Young, 901 F.2d 624 (7th Cir. 1990).
59. Patricia M. Dechow, et al., Causes and Consequences of Earnings Manipulation: An
Analysis of Firms Subject to Enforcement Actions by the SEC, 13 CONTEMP. ACCT.
RES. 1, 31 (1996).
60. Tom Lauricella, For Staid Mutual-Fund Industry, Growing Probe Signals Shake-Up,
WALL ST. J., October 20, 2003, at A1 (quoting Levitt).
61. See Tom Lauricella & Deborah Solomon, Scrutiny of Mutual Funds Grows as SEC
Probes Deals With Brokers, WALL ST. J., October 23, 2003, at A1 (quoting Bogle).
62. All examples in the following laundry list are explicated in detail and documented fully
in Robert A. Prentice, The Case of the Irrational Auditor: A Behavioral Insight into
Securities Fraud Litigation, 95 NW. U. L. REV. 133 (2000).
63. George Loewenstein, Behavioral Decision Theory and Business Ethics: Skewed TradeOs Between Self and Others, in CODES OF CONDUCT: BEHAVIORAL
RESEARCH INTO BUSINESS ETHICS 214, 226 (David M. Missick & Ann E.
Tenbrunsel eds. 1996).
64. George M. Cohen, When Law and Economics Met Professional Responsibility, 67
FORDHAM L. REV. 273, 288 (1998).
65. William M. Landes & Richard A. Posner, THE ECONOMIC STRUCTURE OF TORT
LAW 28081 (1987). Some game theorists have posited that it is, in many factual scenarios, rational for buyers to decide not to read seller-provided form contracts. See e.g., Avery
Katz, The Strategic Structure of Oer and Acceptance: Game Theory and the Law of
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
107
Contract Formation, 89 MICH. L. REV. 215, 28293 (1990) (noting the fact that the
decision to spend resources becoming informed must precede the information that reveals
whether it is worth doing so, and that the drafters of form contracts have the incentive to
take advantage of this . . . [And] it is just this fact that makes reading irrational.).
Margaret M. Blair & Lynn A. Stout, Trust, Trustworthiness, and the Behavioral
Foundations of Corporate Law, 149 U. PA. L. REV. 1735 (2001).
See Thomas Donaldson & Thomas W. Dunfee, TIES THAT BIND: A SOCIAL CONTRACTS APPROACH TO BUSINESS ETHICS 9596 (1999): Outside sources may
inuence the development of norms. Law, particularly when it is perceived as legitimate
by members of a community, may have a major impact on what is considered to be
correct behavior. Thus, the U.S. Corporate Sentencing Guidelines may be expected to
inuence perceptions of appropriate structures and policies for assigning managerial
responsibility pertaining to corporate social responsibility. Conventional wisdom holds
that U.S. law has inuenced changes in ethical norms pertaining to racial or genderbased discrimination and also as to the legitimacy of insider trading. See also Mark
Kelman, Consumption Theory, Production Theory, and Ideology in the Coase Theorem, 52
S. CAL. L. REV. 669, 695 (1979) (noting that perhaps society learns what to value in
part through the legal systems descriptions of our protected spheres); Eric A. Posner,
Law, Economics, and Inecient Norms, 144 U. PA. L. REV. 1697, 1731 (1996) (laws
inevitably strengthen or weaken social norms by signaling an ocial stance toward
them).
Blair & Stout, supra note 66, at 1809.
Id. at 178586.
Id. at 1787.
Iman Anabtawi, Secret Compensation, 82 N.C. L. REV. 835, 837 (2004).
Michael B. Dor, Softening Pharaohs Heart: Harnessing Altruistic Theory and
Behavioral Law and Economics to Rein in Executive Salaries, 51 BUFF. L. REV. 811,
82829 (2003).
Donald C. Langevoort, Organized Illusions: A Behavioral Theory of Why Corporations
Mislead Stock Market Investors (and Cause Other Social Harms), 146 U. PA. L. REV.
101 (1997).
Frank H. Easterbrook & Daniel R. Fischel, THE ECONOMIC STRUCTURE OF
CORPORATE LAW 93100 (1991).
See Hal R. Arkes & Cindy Schipani, Medical Malpractice v. the Business Judgment Rule:
Dierences in the Hindsight Bias, 73 OR. L. REV. 587 (1994).
This discussion largely tracks a discussion contained in Robert A. Prentice, Whither
Securities Regulation? Some Behavioral Observations Regarding Proposals for its Future,
51 DUKE L.J. 1397 (2002).
Abolaa, infra note 80, at 187.
Frank Partnoy, F.I.A.S.C.O.: BLOOD IN THE WATER ON WALL STREET (1997),
at 6061.
Michael Lewis, LIARS POKER: RISING THROUGH THE WRECKAGE OF
WALL STREET 16470 (1989).
See Dean Witter, Ocials Face NASDR Charges Over Sales of Risky Bond Trust
Investments, BNA SEC. L. DAILY, Nov. 21, 2000. [See also Mitchel Y. Abolaa,
MAKING MARKETS: OPPORTUNISM AND RESTRAINT ON WALL STREET
4 (1996) (noting a seemingly unending stream of recent scandals involving professional stock traders).
See Ellen Kelleher, Brokers Face Action Over Annuity Advice, FINANCIAL TIMES,
June 10, 2004, at 20.
Mitchell Pacelle, Republic New York Pleads Guilty to Fraud, Agrees to Pay Restitution,
WALL ST. J., December 18, 2001, at C10.
Hersh. M. Shefrin & Meir Statman, Explaining Investor Preference for Cash Dividends,
in ADVANCES IN BEHAVIORAL FINANCE 393, 408 (Richard Thaler, ed. 1993).
G. Richard Shell, Opportunism and Trust in the Negotiation of Commercial Contracts:
Toward a New Cause of Action, 44 VAND. L. REV 221, 269 (1991) at 269.
108
85. Thus, one prominent study shows evidence of a reputational constraint, but also evidence that the constraint is hardly a strong one. See Willard T. Carleton, et al., Optimism
Biases Among Brokerage and Non-Brokerage Firms Equity Recommendations: Agency
Costs in the Investment Industry, 27 FIN. MGMT. 17 (Spring 1998). Carleton, Chen, and
Steiner studied thousands of stock recommendations made by national brokerage rms,
regional brokerage rms, and nonbrokerage rms. The brokerage rms have an incentive to give more positive recommendations than nonbrokerage rms because they want
to stay on good terms with the issuers whose business they would like to cultivate. And,
indeed, the studys ndings were that brokerage rms recommendations were more optimistic than those of nonbrokerage rms. Id. at 19. On the other hand, they found that
regional brokerage rms, which have less reputational capital to protect, tend to inate
their recommendations as compared to national brokerage rms. Id. at 1920. Thus, the
nonbrokerage rms which had less self-interest at stake had more accurate recommendations than the brokerage rms. Id. at 20. But among the brokerage rms, the national
rms with more reputational capital to protect proered more accurate recommendations than the regional rms. Id.
86. Stephen M. Bainbridge, Mandatory Disclosure: A Behavioral Analysis, 68 U. CIN. L.
REV. 1023 (2000).
87. Id. at 1026.
88. Id. at 103741.
89. Id. at 104143.
90. William Samuelson & Richard Zeckhauser, Status Quo Bias in Decision Making, 1 J.
RISK & UNCERTAINTY 7 (1988).
91. See Jean C. Bedard, An Archival Investigation of Audit Program Planning, AUDITING:
A J. OF PRAC & THEORY 57, 5758 (Fall 1989).
92. Bainbridge, supra note 86, at 104953.
93. See Robyn M. Dawes, Social Dilemmas, 31 ANN. REV. PSYCHOL. 169, 187 (1980).
94. The following material is summarized from a much longer treatment contained in Robert
A. Prentice, Contract-Based Defenses in Securities Fraud Litigation: A Behavioral
Analysis, U. ILL. L. REV. 337 (2003).
95. William M. Landes & Richard A. Posner, THE ECONOMIC STRUCTURE OF TORT
LAW 28081 (1987).
96. Larry E. Ribstein, Market vs. Regulatory Responses to Corporate Fraud: A Critique of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 28 IOWA J. CORP. L. 1, 2223 (2002).
97. Nothing But the Truth About Why We Tell Lies, FINANCIAL TIMES, May 28, 2004
(citing Michael Berry, a senior lecturer in forensic psychology at Manchester
Metropolitan University who notes that people who lie in business have no emotional
attachment to the business lie, so most lie detection systems would not discover them.).
98. See G. Richard Shell, Fair Play, Consent and Securities Arbitration: A Comment on
Speidel, 62 BROOK. L. REV. 1365, 1368 (1996).
99. See Stephen Choi & Mitu Gulati, Innovation in Boilerplate Contracts: An Empirical
Examination of Sovereign Bonds, 53 EMORY L.J. 929 (2004).
100. Hillary A. Sale, Gatekeepers, Disclosure, and Issuer Choice, 81 WASH. U. L. Q. 403,
406 (2003) (noting that the market did not adequately discount even for risks that
were fully disclosed and questioning whether investors could accurately process information about which issuers chose pro-investor regimes and which chose anti-investor
regimes).
101. Stephen J. Choi, Promoting Issuer Choice in Securities Regulation, 41 VA. J. INTL. L.
815, 825 (2001).
102. See generally Stephen C. Choi & A.C. Pritchard, Behavioral Economics and the SEC, 56
STAN. L. REV. 1 (2003).
103. Richard H. McAdams, An Attitudinal Theory of Expressive Law, 79 OR. L. REV. 339,
389 (2000).
104. Joel Seligman, THE TRANSFORMATION OF WALL STREET 17879 (rev. ed. 1995)
(noting long-term impact of the SECs revolution in nancial morality accomplished
in the 1930s).
109
105. Elaine Welle, Freedom of Contract and the Securities Laws: Opting Out of Securities
Regulation by Private Agreement, 56 WASH. & LEE L. REV. 519, 541 (1999).
106. See id. at 56162. See also Jerey J. Rachlinski, The Limits of Social Norms, 74
CHI.KENT L. REV. 1537, 1544 (2000) (even in the absence of enforcement the mere
act of criminalizing conduct can reduce its prevalence).
107. Robert A. Prentice, Enroll: A Brief Behavioral Autopsy, 40 AM. BUS. L. REV. 417,
44344 (2003).
4. History of law and corporate nance

An historical analysis of basic law, corporate law, and securities regulation
highlights their importance in the evolution of modern economies, complementing the foregoing economic and behavioral analyses. Organic evolution creates life of greater and greater complexity. Customs and norms
are perhaps sucient to organize commerce in small groups, but greater
size requires the conscious formality of law to facilitate trade and other
economic relationships in a highly interdependent and culturally diverse
world.1 This chapter sets out a necessarily abbreviated history of the development of the law governing corporate nance.
Complex societies require government enforcement of economic transactions. As Nobel prize winner Douglass North has noted, [t]he move . . .
from unwritten traditions and customs to written laws has been unidirectional as we have moved from less to more complex societies and is clearly
related to the increasing specialization and division of labor associated with
more complex societies.2 North and other prominent gures in institutional economics have used historical analysis to demonstrate the critical
role that legal institutions play in economic development.
Thus, in the early 1600s, the Attorney General of Ireland, John Davis,
noted that [t]he rst and principal cause of making kings was to maintain
property and contracts, and trac and commerce among men.3 Fostering
economic development by providing a legal framework that facilitates business development remains a primary purpose of every form of government.
History teaches that governments that do it well, encourage economic
growth. Governments that cannot foster such an environment, whether
they are monarchies or democracies, stunt growth because ecient markets
require the rule of law. This chapter reviews the history of the development
of the underlying basic law and then the securities laws. The history illustrates the theoretical arguments in the prior chapters about the value of
such laws to the economy.
BASIC LAW
There is little controversy regarding the importance for an economys prosperity of respect for the rule of law, a reliable court system, and basic
110
111
contract, property, and tort law. As early as the twelfth century, monarchs
in parts of Europe began providing security and dispute resolution to their
subjects, thereby paving the way for predictability and trust in commercial
relationships. Over time, development of the basic bodies of law preceded
and paved the way for economic growth.
Contract Law
Certainly familiarity and trust facilitate commercial relationships. But
without some governmental enforcement mechanism, historically people
trusted and dealt with few beyond friends and family. True, in the eleventh
century, the Maghribi, Moroccan traders, built a trading system in the
Mediterranean area by creating a system of collective sanctions that it
applied to entire groups. If one trader from Genoa breached an agreement
with a trader from Morocco, all Genoans were punished.4 This created an
incentive for all Genoan traders to band together and self-police their
members conduct. While this system created an atmosphere that extended
trade beyond friends and relatives, it was not as eective as modern
government-enforced rules carrying surer enforcement mechanisms and
more targeted remedies.
From a modern vantage point in a developed nation, it is dicult to
fathom why legal systems all over the world had diculty developing theoretical bases for enforcing commercial promises, even though rudimentary
contractual arrangements date back at least 5000 years to Mesopotamia.
In the Western tradition, Roman law initially developed the notion that a
promise may give rise to an enforceable duty, but never advanced
suciently to broadly enforce executory promises.5 Written codes promulgated by European rulers before 1100 A.D. or so seldom contained any but
the most eeting reference to commercial law. The English common law of
contracts emerged in the twelfth century, borrowing heavily from Roman
law, especially Justinians Corpus Juris Civilis. Common law courts initially
enforced only formal promises known as covenants that were made in
writing and sealed with wax. These formalities stultied development as
commercial arrangements became more numerous and complex.
Economic actors required a method of enforcing informal promises
without resorting to the time-consuming and expensive process of putting
all arrangements in writing and sealing them with wax.
Through the tort of assumpsit, the English common law courts slowly
began to allow recovery against parties who failed to carry out a formal
contractual promise. However, for a long time even this promising new
avenue allowed no remedy for a party who simply failed to perform an
informal promise. Then, the common law courts extended their willingness
112
to enforce a contract under assumpsit to a situation where the other side

had armatively relied upon an informal promise. The courts were simultaneously attempting to accommodate merchants and others in order to
facilitate commerce, yet searching for a limiting principle because they
believed, as courts do today, that it is impractical to enforce every single
commercial promise.
Finally, around the dawn of the sixteenth century, English common law
courts began enforcing exchanges of promise where no performance had
been rendered on either side on grounds that the promisee had limited his
own freedom by making a promise. In other words, the doctrine of mutuality of consideration provided the limiting principle that nally induced
common law courts to enforce executory promises without going so far as
to enforce every single promise any commercial actor made.6
Civil law countries took a dierent route to arrive at much the same location. France, for example, also borrowed heavily from early Roman law,
unsurprising given the Roman occupation of Gaul. In delimiting the
promises which should be enforceable, French jurists, after some legal evolution, ultimately returned to Roman laws concept of causa, examining the
motive of the parties. They converted this Roman idea into the French la
cause, focusing on the volition of the parties, perhaps emphasizing autonomy of the parties even more than the common law.7 Only with easily
enforceable contracts do merchants dare to sell on credit to strangers, can
strangers pool resources to form businesses, can banks and other lenders
broadly extend credit.
As noted in earlier chapters, law not only embodies customs and norms,
it shapes them. English common law emphasized individual responsibility
for agreements and that became an accepted norm among businesspeople.8
Eective contract law thus provides not only remedies for breach of specic
agreements but an inuential guide for all economic actors as to proper
commercial conduct. In this way, contract law institutionalized trust and
made the rapid development of capitalism possible. Trust between
strangers seldom exists without the institutional and legal framework supporting modern contract law in modern capitalist societies.9
Property Law
Without contract law, most exchanges of property could not comfortably
take place. And without property law, the existence of private property in its
modern conception would itself be in doubt. Property law identies ownership of resources, making possible commercial trading and accumulation of
capital. In nations with formal property law, homeowners can establish that
they own their houses, can borrow against the house to start businesses, and
113
banks are willing to make such loans because they know that they can gain
legal ownership of the house if the loan is not repaid. In this way, homes
and other possessions are used to nance most small businesses, which are
the engines driving a substantial portion of economic growth even in
economies apparently dominated by large multinational corporations.
By contrast, in developing nations that lack a property rights system,
aspiring entrepreneurs cannot prove they own their homes, cannot bind
themselves to transfer title, and therefore cannot induce potential lenders
to take a chance on making a loan. At Americas birth, a sophisticated
modern property rights system was not yet in place, but soon thereafter
Americans and Europeans established widespread formal property law that
allowed owners to convert their property into capital, launching capitalism
on a rapidly rising trajectory.10 Simply put, for developing nations weak
property rights are a bigger problem than limited access to external nance
because they discourage entrepreneurs from reinvesting their retained earnings.11 Capitalism triumphed in Western nations in large part because property law allowed people to cooperate and produce under a single integrated
system in an expanded market.12 Even among Western nations, dierences
in legal systems caused dierential economic growth. In the seventeenth
century England and the Netherlands surpassed France and Spain in part
because they did the better job of establishing and securing property
rights.13 Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, one of the most signicant impediments to many formerly communist nations economic revival has been an
absence of doctrines, institutions, and traditions needed to adequately
protect property rights. As Nobel laureate Mancur Olson notes, secure
and well-dened rights for all to private property and impartial enforcement of contracts14 is essential to economic success.
Ronald Coases famous theorem assumes zero transaction costs and concludes that in such a world, rational self-interested parties will inevitably
bargain to the most ecient solution. In addition to the errors inherent in
an assumption of rationality pointed out in the previous chapter, there is
no world without transaction costs, as Coase conceded when he gave his
Nobel laureate address:
If we move from a regime of zero transaction costs to one of positive transaction costs, what becomes immediately clear is the crucial importance of the legal
system in this new world . . . While we can imagine in the hypothetical world of
zero transaction costs that the parties to an exchange would negotiate to change
any provision of the law which prevents them from taking whatever steps are
required to increase the value of production, in the real world of positive transaction costs such a procedure would be extremely costly, and would make
unprotable, even when it was allowed, such a contracting around the law.
Because of this, the rights which individuals possess, with their duties and
114
privileges, will be to a large extent what the law determines. As a result the legal
system will have a profound eect on the working of the economic system and
may in certain respects be said to control it.15
In short, property law protects property, which is the most signicant incentive that exists to motivate people to generate wealth and prosperity.
Most empirical studies indicate that countries with legal systems that
protect property rights have economies that regularly outperform the
economies of countries that do not.16 In todays information age, a particular form of property lawthat protecting intellectual propertyis
arguably the single most important factor in the transition to modern
growth because it increases the fraction of output paid to compensate creative minds for the fruits of their labor.17 The rst known patent law was
passed in Venice in 1474, and some have linked the beginning of the
Industrial Revolution to the fact that England and France concluded in the
1700s that patent rights were protectable property rights. There is evidence
that during the 1800s Americas economic development outstripped
Englands because America had more advanced patent law and thereby
granted more patents and encouraged more inventiveness by its citizens.
Tort Law
In addition to ecient enforcement of contracts and protection of property rights, one other foundational feature of an ecient economy is needed
promotion of fair play. Capitalism, it turns out, is not a naturally occurring system. It requires rules, laws and customs to protect private property,
enforce contracts and ensure fair play. Until those are in place you dont get
a free market but a free-for-all, which quickly becomes the rule of the
strong.18 Fraud leads to inecient allocation of resources and discourages
economic actors from participating in markets, so the legal systems of all
nations attempt to provide remedies for defrauded buyers and sellers.
Simple fairness is valued by humans in every society. Rules that punish
deceit not only provide remedies for unacceptable conduct but also signal
commercial actors as to what standards they will be held to. In so doing,
tort rules benecially shape nations commercial atmospheres.
The basic law of deceit in common law nations is grounded in the earliest English law. As early as 1201, English common law recognized a very
limited writ of deceit, which slowly evolved from what today we would consider breaches of contract into an independent tort. Both civil and criminal remedies for fraud in commercial transactions have been staples of the
common law for centuries. Similarly, civil law nations have long punished
fraud. For example, the Napoleonic Code from early on contained several
115
provisions punishing fraud, deceit, and stellionate (fraud in the form of

selling mortgaged property without revealing the mortgage to the buyer).19
The French word dol used in the original Code technically carries a wider
meaning than the English fraud.
As the securities markets developed in both England and the United
States, established property law concepts from real estate and goods were
easily applied to this new form of property. Thus, by the late 1700s,
common law courts in England were applying fraud rules to the sale of
securities in the same manner that they applied them to sale of any other
property.20 And American courts were similarly protecting defrauded
parties in securities transactions by at least 1790.21
An important development in the common law of fraud and deceit
occurred when the courts addressed cases where the deceivers were not
parties to the transaction. Courts commonly handled situations where a
seller of a horse lied to the buyer about the horses state of health. But then
they had to decide whether the law of deceit should be expanded to cover
lies by nonparties? In the 1789 case, Pasley v. Freeman,22 English courts
held that a defendant who had no contract with the plainti could be liable
for misleading the plainti into contracting with a third person.23 So,
suppose a shareholder of ABC Co. sells ABC stock to an investor, both
believing that ABC is a sound company and that its share price is representative of the shares true value. Assume further that their belief is based
upon the statements of a promoter or ocer of ABC Co., who is not a
party to the transaction. Should the buyer be able to recover damages in
common law fraud from the deceitful promoter or ocer? Pasley v.
Freeman set an adequate precedent, and early in the 1800s, American
judges began to allow recovery in such situations, which clearly paved the
way for fairer and more ecient stock markets.24 The development of
public companies would later require invention of an extended liability, the
securities law fraud on the market theory (discussed in economic terms
in Chapter 2 and revisited later in this chapter), but this was an important
rst step.
Thus, developments in the basic law of contracts, property, and the tort
of fraud and deceit have provided important foundations for the growth of
economies in general and of corporate activity and securities markets
specically. Only the most ardent opponents of government interference
with free enterprise would doubt the value of these legal rules as enablers
of commercial development.
Before leaving the discussion of basic law, it is relevant to note that
statutes and judicial decisions are merely words on a page. There must exist
enforcement mechanisms, legal institutions, and cultural norms to give
these words real meaning in the marketplace. Without institutions to
116
enforce them or the right of injured individuals to sue for their breach, and
without eective legal processes to reach fair results in these actions, the
substantive rights themselves mean little. The quality of courts is important, as is the substance of the law. The US common law judge-made system
derives from English tradition, while most continental European nations
use a civil law system of statutory codes.
CORPORATE LAW
Although the rst semi-comprehensive corporate codes date back less than
two hundred years, the roots of business organizations can be traced back
at least to Mesopotamia in 3000 BC. Ancient Phoenicians and Athenians
developed early forms of partnership. In medieval times, shipping businesses aggregated capital and distributed shares in a form closely resembling modern partnerships. Although some trace the origin of corporations
to the ancient Greeks,25 Blackstone concluded long ago that the honor of
inventing companies belonged to the Romans, for they devised the notion
of a corporation having an identity separate and apart from that of its
owners and the concept of limited liability.
The development of the corporation was critically important. Around
1000 AD both the Chinese and the Arabs had important trading and commercial advantages over the West, but many suggest that because their legal
systems were not conducive to developing companies,26 they lost the commercial advantage that they enjoyed.27 Rather, in the twelfth century in
Venice and Florence, in the sixteenth century in England and soon thereafter in France, in the early seventeenth century in Holland, and in the late
1700s in America, the modern legal notion of a corporation began to
evolve and ourish, sparking economic development that outstripped that
of nations without the legal structures to create such entities.
These proto-corporations initially took two basic forms. One was the
unincorporated joint-stock company that slowly evolved to contain more
and more corporate-like features and to resemble less and less the partnership form. The other was the specially-chartered corporation that was often
privately nanced but featured government participation and was often a
government-sheltered monopoly. In the late 1700s and early 1800s in
England, France, and America, such special charters were often granted to
corporations formed for public works projects that governments did not
wish to undertake via tax revenues, such as canals and roads.
Until the nineteenth century, governments in these nations required promoters to receive special government permission for their enterprises to
assume the corporate form. During the 1800s, however, todays developed
117
nations gradually began allowing free registration of corporations that met

given criteria rather than requiring promoters to secure governmental permission for each charter. France was one of the rst nations to do so, but
then changed course with its Code de Commerce in 1807 and went back to
requiring special legislative concession. When England began allowing free
registration (rst without limited liability in 1844 and then with limited liability in 1855), France was forced to follow (in 1867) because of French
resources migrating to England and increased activity of English companies on the continent. Germany then followed suit in 1870. Meanwhile,
beginning in the 1830s a substantial shift among American states to free
registration began.
Provisions dispensing with the requirement of special legislative act as a
prerequisite for forming a corporation were often part of broader corporate
codes that addressed many issues necessarily raised by a proliferation of
private business corporations. In the United States, New York passed one of
the rst broad state corporate statutes in 1811. England, which had a fairly
well-developed common law in the area, did not begin its codication
process until 1844. In Prussia, a corporate law was enacted in 1843. With the
creation of these codes, both the specially-chartered corporation and the
unincorporated joint-stock company faded away to be replaced by a corporate form that quickly evolved to contain modern features.
The speed of the evolution varied from country to country and was not
always steady, but most developed European and North American nations
moved slowly at rst, then quickly during the late nineteenth century,
toward promoting and enabling corporate entities sporting these key features: (a) separateness of identity, (b) perpetuity of existence, (c) limited liability, (d) centralized control, (e) duciary duties for managers, (f)
protection for minority shareholders, and (g) the ability to amass bonded
capital. The importance of these modern companies for economic development cannot be gainsaid. Corporations increase the pool of available
capital, enable investors to spread risk, provide an avenue for eectively
managing large organizational structures, and provide a strong incentive
for organizations to be ecient by allowing investors to move their money
elsewhere.28
Nicholas Butler, a former president of Columbia University, concluded
that [t]he limited liability corporation is the greatest single discovery of
modern times; even steam and electricity would be reduced to comparative
impotence without it.29 The rst enterprises requiring huge accumulations
of capitalrailroadswere universally formed as corporations, as are virtually all large enterprises today. Indeed, the corporation may be the most
important of all the institutions that enable the modern market economy.30
Today, these engines of economic power produce 90 percent of the sales
118
and receipts reported by American businesses. Across the globe there

appears to be a broad correlation between economic progress and the
embracing of the corporate form. While some partnerships and even sole
proprietorships have reached a large size and lasted for lengthy periods, it
is the corporate form that has overwhelmingly accounted for the size and
scope of modern enterprises. And it is modern corporate law that has facilitated and enabled those enterprises in a way that private contracting
among individuals could never accomplish alone.
Separate Legal Identity
The most obvious contribution of corporate law to the creation of the
modern corporate enterprise is simply that corporations cannot exist
without legal sanction. Corporations are articial creatures of the state.
While theoretically people could contract for all of the relationships that
make up a corporation, in reality such organizations simply do not exist in
the absence of legal sanction beyond simple contract enforcement. As Peter
Drucker has noted, [t]his new corporation, this new Socit Anonyme,
this new Aktiengesellschaft, . . . clearly was an innovation . . . It was the
rst autonomous institution in hundreds of years, the rst to create a power
center that was within society yet independent of the central government
of the nation state.31
In his 1937 article The Nature of the Firm, Coase contended that the
corporate form allows minimization of the transaction costs of coordinating economic activity and thereby provides a competitive advantage when
compared to buyers and sellers making new contracts at every stage of production. More recently, Blair and Stout have made the same point, viewing
the corporation as a mechanism for solving team production problems
that in todays large modern enterprises are simply too complicated to
handle via individual contracting alone.32
The essence of the team production problem is that varied inputs from a number
of individuals are needed, these inputs are dicult or impossible to monitor or
specify contractually, and the output is a joint output, not readily divisible or
attributable to individual inputs. These inputs and investments are often
enterprise-specic, because their value, once they have been sunk into the enterprise, is tied to the overall success of the enterprise. The specicity, or sunk
quality of the investments, increases the diculty of writing simple contracts
among individuals that could elicit and coordinate the use of such inputs.33
While it is possible for large organizations to be operated in the partnership form, as large accounting rms proved for a time, it was exceedingly
rare for businesses to amass huge quantities of assets, to employ thousands
119
of workers, or to take on truly large projects before the modern corporation began to evolve.
As noted, because of the very novelty of the corporate form, fear of great
accumulations of assets, sovereign worry about loss of control, and even
undue greed by government ocials, for quite a time in most nations the
law required a specic act of government to create a corporation. Placed in
historical context, it is not surprising that governments imposed these
requirements, but it is also clear that such requirements retarded corporate
formation, presented opportunities for corruption when promoters were
tempted to bribe government ocials, and even enabled fraud by promoters who collected assets while promising to form a corporation that they
knew the government would likely not approve. The need for government
approval also restrained economic development by sometimes requiring
intrepid entrepreneurs to accomplish their goals through less satisfactory
forms of business organization including partnerships and unincorporated
joint-stock companies. For example, although Englands Bubble Act of
1720 is typically referred to as one of the earliest securities regulations, its
most signicant provision made it illegal to sell shares in joint-stock companies that had not received Parliamentary permission to form. Until it was
repealed in 1825, this Act may have inhibited evolution of the modern corporate form in England (although the Act did not apply to Scotland, and
joint-stock companies did not ourish there either).34 Many believe that a
turning point in American corporate development occurred with the postRevolution formation of a strong federal government which made it clear
that the Bubble Act no longer applied in America. Formation of corporations exploded thereafter in the former colonies.35
With the decision in Fletcher v. Peck36 that a legislative grant to a private
company was a contract under the American Constitutions Contract
Clause, and in Dartmouth College37 that a corporations state charter was
also a contract that could not be altered by the legislature unless the right
to do so had been specically reserved in the charter, the safe existence of
the corporation relatively free from legislative interference was armed
and capital owed to corporations in amounts ensuring that they would be
the preeminent vehicles for economic growth in America.38
Only as the laws of England, France, Germany, and the United States
(which have served as a model for the corporate laws of most other nations
around the world) dispensed with the requirement of special governmental
approval for corporate formation did the modern corporation begin to
ower. Allowing large numbers of articial corporate entities to enjoy corporate personhood, to own property, to sue in their own name, to (in
America) enjoy substantial Constitutional rights, provided exibility and
continuity unmatched by other forms of business enterprise.
120
Perpetuity
An important aspect of the new corporate form was the potential perpetuity of its existence. Sole proprietorships obviously ended with the death of
their owner (although an heir or another might take up the burdens of the
business). The default common law position was that partnerships also dissolved upon the death or other departure of any of the partners. Early
joint-stock companies, such as those in England, often were formed for the
purpose of collecting capital to stock a ship for trading in newly discovered
lands. Typically, the merchants who chartered the ship with their pooled
capital would have an accounting after each journey. The next trade
mission would involve an entirely new enterprise.
Thus, the notion of a truly long-term business enterprise was rare in
private business ventures. The concept of perpetual existence of a corporate form may have evolved in ecclesiastical organizations as a way to
enable churches to own property over time even as parishioners, priests, and
others came and went. Obviously, such an ability could be useful to private
business enterprises as well.
In 1623 the Dutch East India Company was granted the right of perpetuity. It collected capital to fund not just one voyage, but a potentially
endless series of voyages. In 1654 the British East India Company followed
suit. These entities paved the way for creation of large accumulations of
capital that could be used to advance business endeavors over long periods
of time. Owners could come and go. Managers could come and go. But the
enterprise would continue, making binding commitments to employees, to
suppliers, to customers, and to creditors of a character that sole proprietorships and partnerships could not make. The corporate form could more
easily undertake long-term endeavors than any preexisting form of enterprise. And the corporate entity itself could establish a reputation in the economic communityseparate and apart from that of its individual owners
or managersthat would assist it in achieving commercial success. Simple
contract law could never accomplish such progress.
Limited Liability
Many believe that corporate laws most signicant contribution to the development of capitalism is limited liability. More than any other single concept,
limited liability encourages people to invest in enterprises operated by
strangers, enabling business enterprises to grow to substantial size and enjoy
economies of scale, the benets of perpetuity, and other advantages of size.
In earlier times, sole proprietorships tended to employ family members and
neighbors. Partnerships were necessarily small because partners needed to
121
know much about the reliability of their fellow investors/partners for the
simple reason that if other partners defaulted, then the personal liability of
the nondefaulters could skyrocket. For many years, partners who were
unable to pay their obligations faced debtors prison or even the prospect of
being sold into slavery. Such a state certainly discouraged any person from
casting his economic lot with strangers.
While it is perhaps theoretically possible for partnerships to contract for
limited liability for their partners when negotiating contracts (just as it is
possible for shareholders to contractually forfeit their limited liability as
they often do in close corporations), in matters of tort law such is not possible. The owners of a company could not contract for limited liability with
unknown and possibly unforeseeable victims of the tortious actions of their
companies managers and employees. The corporate form can provide such
protection for liabilities in tort as well as contract, thereby facilitating
investment because a shareholders total potential liability is generally
unaected by the personal reliability or solvency of other shareholders.
Limited liability solves an agency problem. Without it, shareholders would
have to monitor much more closely and expensively their corporate managers. Limited liability protects shareholders from liability, shifting the risk
to the corporate entities creditors who often are better equipped and more
intensely motivated to monitor than shareholders of a corporation whose
ownership is widely dispersed.39
Limited liability was initially recognized for government-sponsored corporations, such as the Dutch East India Company. Slowly, it began to
become a more common feature of private corporations, especially as
general corporation statutes spread. Britain in 1855 formally recognized
limited liability; Germany did so in 1861 and France in 1863. Over the
course of the nineteenth century, limited liability became the default rule in
American jurisdictions as well (although not in California until 1931).
Limited liability came in stages and was likely not as important to shareholders in the early 1800s as it later became, but virtually every relevant legislative change in the developed countries during the nineteenth century
strengthened and broadened the shield of limited liability and thereby gave
added incentive to the investment that is critical to economic development.
Limited liability is arguably a near prerequisite for broad investor participation in company ownership.40 With the advent of modern tort liability
for on-the-job injuries, for automobile crashes, and for product defects,
limited liability has become so important that even the law governing small
entities stresses its importance. In America in recent years state legislatures
have created all manner of new organizational forms (limited liability partnerships, limited liability companies, and limited liability limited partnerships, for example) to provide limited liability for almost all entrepreneurs.
122
Centralized Control by Managers

The separate corporate entity, the perpetuity of existence, and the limited
liability of investors all led to a formal separation of ownership from
control in larger corporations. Although partners in a partnership can hire
managers to operate the business for them and thereby evade the default
rule that important decisions require the majority vote of all partners, this
typically is not the practice. And it would be very dicult in the partnership form to do this in an enterprise for a lengthy period of time. Before the
corporate form blossomed among private business enterprises, they tended
to be small and often family-managed.
The corporate form with its perpetual existence, however, facilitates
delegation of control and, indeed, creates a presumption in a rm of any
size that such delegation will occur. The Dutch East India Company was
one of the rst to formalize and take advantage of this separation by creating a layer of professional managers separate and apart from the rms
investors. Providing monitoring by a board of directors, this structure
commits to the discretion of managers the day-to-day decisions necessary
for operation of the business. Managers not only make the daily decisions
necessary to operate the rm, they initiate the long-term strategies that are
monitored by the board and the organic changes that must be approved by
both directors and shareholders.
It was the development of the corporate form in private business enterprises that created a framework wherein despite the coming and going of
owners, of specic managers, of rafts of employees, of assets in various
forms, a team of professional managers can continue to coordinate the
enterprise using the principles of Chandler, Sloan, Deming, Drucker,
Porter, and others (primarily Americans).41 Utilization of the corporate
form promoted the development of hierarchical management structures
that led, in turn, to the creation of a class of middle managers and technical specialists who could have long careers with their employers. It also
facilitated the creation of brands for both corporate entities and their
products.42
America was quicker to adopt professional managers than England, and
it made a dierence in economic development.43 Hiring the best managers
available rather than the best family members available, as was the British
custom for so long, facilitates ecient operation of modern economic
enterprises. France also suered under a family-dominated approach,
leading to a general weakness of its capital markets. Only after World War
II did France produce large, vertically-integrated companies capable of
making use of sophisticated management techniques.
123
Fiduciary Duty of Managers

Separation of ownership from control, though creating some obvious
advantages, also creates a potential agency problem. According to Adam
Smith, an agent watching over someone elses assets would never be as
careful as a principal guarding his own.44 More than a hundred years after
Smith, Berle and Means famously echoed this concern about the problems
stemming from a division between ownership and control.45 Again, theoretically it would be possible for investors to contract for a proper level of
protection from the potential misdeeds of corporate managers and employees. In real life, especially given the behavioral considerations outlined in
the previous chapter, it is exceedingly dicult to truly manage this problem
contractually.
Modern corporate law has evolved to address this problem in at least two
fundamental ways. First, it sets up a system of monitoring. In America, for
example, shareholders have the right to vote and therefore to have direct
input into how their assets are being used. They may typically vote regarding important corporate matters such as mergers and liquidations. They
may also vote for directors who will monitor the managers who run the
company day-to-day, thus giving them indirect input into broad policy
decisions as well.
Similar monitoring systems have evolved in other nations as well.46 UK
corporations have long had a board of directors that operated in similar
fashion to those in America and as early as 1862 provided for modest independent monitoring of public companies by a government agency. Since
1870, Germany has required a supervisory or rst-tier board (Aufsichtsrat)
that has acted much as an American board of directors, choosing and
broadly supervising managers. Today, in the Aktiengesellschaften (AG),
the corporations most comparable to American public companies, the
Aufsichtsrat usually contains representatives of powerful German banks, as
well as labor representatives. The supervising board has substantial paper
authority to choose the members of and supervise and investigate the
second-tier or managing board (Vorstand) that is composed substantially
of company insiders. In reality, the Aufsichtsrats exercise of authority is
often not impressive. It frequently has trouble getting the information
required for eective monitoring, and under law its members need meet no
more than twice a year. The monitoring role of the powerful German banks
is signicant, but tends to protect creditors more than shareholders. There
is some evidence that German citizens are less willing to invest in corporations than Americans because the boards do not view their primary goal as
protecting the interests of shareholders. Recently there have been many
suggestions by German scholars that German practice migrate more
124
toward an Anglo-Saxon model of corporate governance and there has been

movement toward that model.
France introduced supervision of managers via commissaries in 1863.
They came to be charged with a wide range of responsibilities, including
ensuring the accuracy of information supplied to shareholders, ensuring
equal treatment of shareholders, and notifying shareholders of irregularities. On the whole, however, directors in France have often been disappointing monitors,47 in large part because of a lack of independence. As
with Germany, most scholars have recommended a move toward the
Anglo-American model and France has taken steps in that direction.
For both economic reasons (diversied shareholders have no strong
reason to pay attention to the performance of any particular company,
given the associated costs) and behavioral reasons (investors have a tendency to overtrust their directors), shareholders usually do not pay
sucient attention to either their decisions regarding which directors to
vote for or the job those directors and the managers they monitor are
doing. Similarly, ocers have traditionally had substantial inuence in
selecting the directors who would monitor them, thus substantially undermining the ecacy of that monitoring.
Therefore, the second thing that corporation law does, more so in
common law jurisdictions, that cannot be eectively done contractually, is
to impose duciary duties upon ocers and directors. These duties not only
impose legal responsibilities upon the ocers and directors, but also create
a model, a norm for directors. In America, this duciary duty generally
cannot be contractually escaped. As the Enron and related scandals
demonstrated at the beginning of the current century, these provisions certainly do not work perfectly, but they are better than a mere contractual
alternative and improvements continue. The continuing struggle involves
the need to create eective monitoring by the directors on the one hand, but
to avoid unduly hamstringing managers decisionmaking on the other.
Early on, common law judges imposed a duciary duty on ocers and
directors, while civil law nations allowed more freedom of contract for
duciary responsibilities. In broad outline it is fair to say that investors fare
better in America and the United Kingdom, where managers owe their
primary duciary duty to shareholders, than in France and Germany where
equal loyalty is owed to creditors and employees. Germany has recognized
the rudiments of a duciary duty, but lacks an ecient enforcement mechanism.48
Admittedly, the role of the directors as protectors of shareholders is not
as critical in jurisdictions such as Germany and Japan, where nancial
institutions provide more of the nancing and play a bigger role as intermediary and monitor of corporate management. Until recently, state
125
ownership and control of private enterprise was a central phenomenon of

the French economy, so government monitoring of corporations played an
important role. That is now fading away substantially, making board-style
monitoring and attendant duciary duties more important.
Even in Americas common law system, the law tends to draw a stark distinction between a breach of the duty of loyalty and a breach of the duty
of care, being much more reluctant to impose liability upon directors, especially outside directors, in the latter case. Indeed, around the world it seems
rare for liability to be imposed upon outside directors for anything other
than clear breaches of the duty of loyalty.49 Whatever the faults of the
Anglo-American system exposed by the Enron scandals, the clear trend
around the world is toward models that promise better and more independent board monitoring and increased duciary duties imposed by law. The
historical experience of the past two hundred years is not leading any
nation to conclude that less vigorous board monitoring and less rigorous
duciary obligations are a good idea.
Protection of Minority Shareholders
Just as passive shareholders can be exploited by those who manage their
assets, minority shareholders can be exploited by controlling shareholders.
This possibility, of course, discourages investment. So, over time, corporate
laws have been developed to protect minority shareholders from such
exploitation. As corporate law evolved in this area, there remained a continuing tension between the need to protect minority shareholders from
exploitation by majority shareholders on the one hand, and the need to
avoid giving minority shareholders an undue ability to hold up the
company when a transaction benecial to the corporate enterprise but
perhaps detrimental to a minority shareholder was at stake.
Consider the right to vote on major organic changes in corporate form
mentioned in the previous section. Under most modern corporate codes
shareholders have the right of voice (to vote on major transactions) and
exit (to have their shares purchased should a major corporate change
with which they disagree occur). But all modern legal regimes struggle with
striking the proper balance between protecting minority shareholder factions from abuse and awarding them the power to shakedown the majority
in such transactions. Regarding a merger, certainly shareholders should
have the right to vote. But should majority approval be sucient? Would a
super-majority provision allow minority shareholders undue power to
block the majoritys wishes? The trend in America has been to do what
Delaware did in 1929 and reduce the merger approval requirement to a
simple majority.
126
Until relatively recently, in France the right to vote seemed to be used

more to regulate relationships between management and the largest shareholders.50 However, in the last 15 years or so, Frances regulations have
evolved to more generally resemble American rules that protect capital
market investors more fully by, in part, giving them the right to vote on
important matters of corporate change, such as mergers.
Another protection for minority shareholders is appraisal rightsthe
right to have their shares bought at a court-determined fair price if they
oppose a major organic change. Of course, if too many shareholders exercise their appraisal rights, the organic change often becomes infeasible even
if supported by a large majority of shareholders. Does this allow minority
shareholders to hold up the company? American shareholders who oppose
a merger but are outvoted generally have the right to demand that their
shares be purchased at a fairly appraised price. The expense of actually pursuing these appraisal rights may render them somewhat hollow, minimizing the likelihood of holdup.
Another mechanism for minority protection is inspection rights. The
common law of England recognized shareholders rights to access corporate books and records in the early 1700s.51 At rst, the right stemmed from
the fact that the corporation was viewed as a trustee holding property for
the benet of stockholders. Later, the view was that shareholders needed
the inspection right in order to protect their property interests.52
Throughout the 1800s, as corporations grew in size, statutes were enacted
in England and America to supplement the common law inspection right.
Generally, shareholders in common law nations have the right to inspect
relevant corporate records at a proper time, in a proper place, for a proper
purpose. On paper, French shareholders have substantial inspection rights
but, as elsewhere, these rights benet mostly shareholders in closely held
corporations and major shareholders of public corporations. The situation
is comparable in Japan where inspection rights on paper are roughly analogous to those accorded shareholders in the United States, but shareholders have diculty enforcing those rights in court.
The right to sue derivatively on behalf of the corporation is another
means of protecting minority shareholders. This right to sue has been recognized in America for 120 years, and despite procedural obstacles,
remains a potent weapon for shareholders. The United Kingdom, on the
other hand, does not have a strong derivative right for shareholders. Nor
does Germany, which relied more on its supervisory boards to protect the
interests of minority shareholders. France has procedures that are in some
respects even more pro-plainti than those in the United States, but they
are typically not used much, in part because shareholders must own a substantial block of stock to be able to sue. Whether because of these problems
127
or a lack of litigious culture or absence of an active plaintis bar, there

have been relatively few such suits. The derivative suit was rarely used in
Japan until some 1993 legal reforms; it is used more now, but the Japanese
system, like Germanys, still relies substantially upon monitoring by companies main banks.53 Such lawsuits have been brought so seldom that
directors and ocers (D&O) insurance was not even oered in Japan until
1994, and then it was introduced to respond to lawsuit exposure overseas.
In general, common law nations appear to provide more protection to
minority shareholders than do civil law nations (particularly those in the
French tradition), and there is recent empirical support for the notion that
these protections aid investment, encourage ownership dispersion, facilitate capital markets, and allow companies to access external nance more
easily. In Germany, Belgium, Holland, and elsewhere, it is common to have
employee voice in manager supervision. Although no major changes are
likely in the immediate future, many scholars and businesspeople even in
those nations seem to believe that to improve capital markets, protections
for shareholders will likely have to be strengthened relative to the interests
of workers and creditors.
Bonding Assets
Importantly, the corporate form enables a commitment of resources to a
venture that no earlier form of organization provided. By partitioning the
assets of the separate corporate entity from the individual assets of its
owners, the corporate form ensures not only that owners will enjoy limited
liability for corporate debts, but also that assets committed by the shareholders to the corporate purpose cannot easily be reached (a) by the creditors54 or heirs55 of individual shareholders or managers, or (b) by those
shareholders and managers themselves. These assets are to remain devoted
to the corporate purpose. They become bonded to the corporate enterprise, theoretically in perpetuity, although that is not truly required to make
it easier to entice investment from others and to borrow money from banks
and to purchase on credit from suppliers. These two results could not be
achieved contractually in the absence of corporate law because a businesss
owners cannot by contractual arrangements among themselves bind their
individual creditors.56
Partnership law and the law of other forms of business organization that
predated the company gave investors substantial leeway to remove their
investment, even if the businesss aairs were substantially disrupted. This
ability not only disrupted the partnerships business, it also enabled one
partner to hold up the others. Even a partners death or mental disability
traditionally dissolved the enterprise. But corporate law commits capital so
128
that it cannot be easily withdrawn. Over the course of the twentieth century
in America, repeated changes in the law aimed at tightening this connection, which was recognized as early as 1824 in Wood v. Dummer57 where
Judge Story explicated the trust fund doctrine.
Corporate law works comparably in other nations, facilitating large
accumulations of capital that can be held in place for long periods of time
and applied by professional managers. By providing limited liability and
protecting investors from exploitation by managers and majority shareholders, the corporate form should also encourage investment.
Conclusion
While the history of corporate law certainly highlights important dierences among the various nations in addressing very basic issues such as
stakeholder rights, shareholder remedies like derivative suits, and other
issues, there has been substantial convergence toward the common law
model as evolved in England, and especially America. Even before 2002,
experts had pointed to the substantial convergence toward the American
model in terms of black letter law around the world.58 Whether nations had
the will, resources, and institutions necessary to eectuate the protection of
minority shareholders deemed a critical priority in every nation was
another matter, of course. Those that succeeded in producing those institutions seemed to prosper more than those that did not.
After the 2002 enactment of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, in which the
American Congress largely mandated that corporations formed in other
nations but accessing American capital markets must adopt important
aspects of American-style corporate governance, that convergence was hastened. Although there was immediate resistance by European and Japanese
companies, there is now increasing acceptance that Sarbanes-Oxleys
requirements of independent directors, strong audit committees, stringent enforcement of disclosure and antifraud requirements, and the rest,
constitute worldwide best practices insofar as the current state of knowledge goes.
Although the EU will not adopt the Sarbanes-Oxley Acts requirements in
toto, many European commentators have recognized the wisdom of emulating the core Sarbanes-Oxley requirements. Germany, France, the United
Kingdom, and other EU nations on their own impetus have for the past
decade moved toward more independent boards, greater use of audit committees, more vigilant auditors, and more realistic and uniform accounting
standards. While some argue that governance reforms of this type should not
be imposed from the top down, but should be evolutionary and marketdriven,59 they admit the desirability and inevitability of such changes.
129
This convergence is not limited to the EU. In recent amendments to its

Commercial Code, Japan moved toward greater concern for shareholder
welfare in corporate governance and facilitated adoption of independent
audit committees and formal separation of inside and outside directors.
Other Asian nations have followed suit in a belief that emulation of
American-style corporate governance would pay dividends.
SECURITIES REGULATION
Having corporate and other ecient forms of business organization will
have little impact if those organizations cannot raise the funds necessary to
pursue entrepreneurial ventures. The three basic business inputs are, after
all, land, labor, and capital. As noted in the previous discussion, corporate
law can induce investment by oering limited liability and can bond those
funds to the corporate purpose. But perhaps other legal features can help
as well, especially those oered by securities regulation.
William Bernstein pointed out in his recent book The Birth of Plenty:
How the Prosperity of the Modern World was Created, that world economic
growth was essentially at from as far back as we can measure until around
1820, when sustained growth began in some parts of what we now consider
the developed world. Based on the preceding thousand years, one would
have projected perhaps a doubling of per capita GDP in the 172 years following 1820. Instead, Englands increased tenfold and Americas twentyfold.60 What accounts for this recent, sustained development? Bernstein
maintains that such rapid development requires the coalescence of four
factors. Two have little to do with our story: scientic rationalism (so that
ideas can be created for eventual commercialization and development), and
fast and ecient communications and transportation (as Stephen Ambrose
pointed out, in Thomas Jeersons time, no goods or information could
move faster than the fastest horse).61 Bernsteins third factor was discussed
abovethe development of property rights that encourage men and
women to work hard and to create by allowing them to keep a fair portion
of the fruits of their labor and not worry about arbitrary conscation by
the government or others.
The fourth and nal factor necessary for economic progress, Bernstein
maintains, is capital markets. Before 1820 or so, few of even the most entrepreneurial minds with the best business ideas had access to the amounts of
money needed to bring their ideas to market.62 This section traces the
historical development of modern securities regulation and explores the
ways in which it may have assisted the development of ecient modern
capital markets, focusing on four areas of law: (a) disclosure requirements,
130
(b) misrepresentation provisions, (c) insider trading rules, and (d) tender
oer rules.
The discussion necessarily draws articial distinctions between securities
regulation and corporate law. As noted earlier, had Englands Bubble Act
simply stated that no corporation could be formed without the special
authorization of Parliament, it would have been viewed as a corporation
law. But by providing that no one could sell securities of corporations
formed without such authority, the Act appeared more like a securities law.
Insider trading rules similarly address an agency problem at the heart of
corporate law and tender oers are one of a variety of forms of corporate
organic change that are central to many corporate law concerns. Proxy rules
embedded in US securities laws represent an attempt to give meaning to an
important corporate law rightthe shareholder right to vote. Even
Englands original securities disclosure rules were embedded within its corporate law in the Company Acts, and Americas recent Sarbanes-Oxley Act
took dead aim at corporate governance practices even though it is viewed
essentially as a securities law. So, clearly, these bodies of law are closely
related and any distinction between them is necessarily arbitrary.
The history of capital market development is largely a Western story
rather than a Middle Eastern story, for Islamic law eventually came to be
interpreted as largely prohibiting the charging of interest (although it was
not so interpreted originally). With no interest there are few loans. Without
loans there is little investment. And, of course, without investment there can
be no capital markets.63 Additionally, these nations lacked clearly dened
property rights. Only in 2004 did nanciers in the Muslim world receive
Koranic permission to form the rst Islamic hedge fund, for example. Nor,
until quite recently, is this a story of the Far East, for Japan, China, Korea,
and other nations had the resources but lacked the institutions (especially
property rights) necessary to create capital markets until they began to
adopt Western ideas. Their emulation of Western laws over the past century
is a testament to a broad worldwide consensus that Western nations have
generally the correct approach to stimulating broad capital investment.
General Background
For many centuries and in many parts of the world, commercial instruments that meet modern denitions of securities have been sold and
traded. Venice had a secondary market in securities as early as the fourteenth century. The Amsterdam Bourse was created in 1530, though it is
largely famous today for the Tulip Mania of 163637. The Dutch also
invented investment banking, allowing the risk of loans to be distributed
among thousands of investors in the seventeenth century.
131
But the roots of modern securities regulation can be traced to England,

where securities trading in secondary markets arrived around 1694 when
the Bank of England was formed. In these early days of Western securities
markets, the securities that were traded were primarily governmental debt
instruments, which became prominent when the monarchs of England and
France began issuing long-term, transferable debt instruments to nance
their wars and other national projects. As early as 1695 there were 150 or
so English companies whose shares were trading suciently to justify creation of an informal stock exchange in the coee houses lining what came
to be known as Londons Exchange Alley. Still, corporate securities were
relatively unimportant in these early days for the simple reason that few
corporations existed until general corporation statutes were enacted during
the 1800s. As the number of corporations exploded during the nineteenth
century, corporate-issued securities rapidly came to the fore.
As noted earlier, Western courts quickly recognized that securities were
just another form of property and readily applied the common law of contracts, torts, and property to securities transactions. Thus was born securities regulation, which even today is in substantial part just a body of contract
and tort law specically adapted to the needs of public corporations, capital
market investors, securities professionals, and their special transactions.
Because the rst comprehensive body of securities law was not enacted until
1933 and 1934 in the United States, many have the impression that securities
transactions were largely unregulated until that time. However, a leading
securities law historian reminds us that from their beginnings English and
American securities markets were substantially regulated.64
This early regulation was prompted by early abuses. Rapscallions quickly
realized that it was easier to fool another regarding the value of a security
than regarding the value of a horse, and that it was easier to articially
manipulate the price of stocks than the price of real estate. And then there
were the bubbles. The Dutch stock exchange, founded around 1611 primarily to trade Dutch East India Company stock, suered a crash with the
Tulip Mania of 1636 and 1637.65 In 1720, some legitimate success of the
British South Sea Company, coupled with a fair measure of fraud and
manipulation, created an irrational market bubble that set the pattern for
later bubbles such as that involving American dot.com stocks in the late
1990s. Nearly simultaneously Frances largest early securities endeavor
(John Laws Mississippi Company) created a similar boom and bust.66
These bubbles and their bursting did inestimable damage to burgeoning
capital markets. Impersonal capital markets require investor condence,
and that is often a fragile commodity that is easily undermined. In France,
for example, John Laws debacle created such distrust that impersonal
securities markets did not develop until more than a hundred years later.67
132
Perhaps unsurprisingly, it is the bursting of bubbles and the disclosure of

nancial scandals that simultaneously subvert investor condence and virtually require government intervention to bolster market condence.
Therefore, frauds and bubbles provided an early impetus to government
consideration of securities regulation. No sooner had a stock exchange
organized itself in London around 1695 than Parliament passed An act to
restrain the number and ill practices of brokers and stockjobbers,68 and
such fraud and manipulation followed an English commissions conclusion
in 1696 that [T]he pernicious art of stockjobbing [has] perverted the end
and design of companies . . . to the private prot of the rst projectors,
[who sell worthless stock to] ignorant men, drawn in by the reputation,
falsely raised and artfully spread, concerning the thriving state of their
stock.69
The law did little more than forbid brokers from trading for their own
account, capped their fees, limited their number to 100, and put some
restrictions upon options trading (then known as time bargains). The
Act expired in 1708, but then the City of London stepped in and licensed
brokers, primarily as a revenue raising measure. In 1711, Parliament reinstated a ceiling on brokers fees, but the next relevant law was passed near
the height of the 1720 South Sea Bubble.
The South Sea Bubble which soared in the rst half of 1720 and crashed
to earth in the second half, created numerous concerns for Parliament and
others. The irrational exuberance of investors prompted charlatans to form
many bogus companies oering securities for all manner of unrealistic
enterprises. Additionally, there was a broad and perhaps exaggerated fear
that insiders could easily manipulate the price of securities and thereby
defraud outsiders. Because very little disclosure regarding the nancial or
commercial status of companies was required or practiced, the stock price
of companies and the amount of dividends they issued were the markets
best signals as to the status of a company and the easy manipulability of
those two signals by insiders justiably led to some concern.
Parliament passed the Bubble Act before the South Sea bubble burst,
barring the selling of securities of companies other than those formed with
Parliaments permission. This was likely already the common law rule, so the
Acts main impact was to provide remedies for violation of preexisting rules.
Many believe that the primary motivation for the Bubble Acts passage was
a desire to funnel nancing to those ventures that Parliament favored such
as the South Sea Company, although there is little doubt that during the
South Sea Bubble many unapproved companies were formed with seriously
fraudulent intent. The Act was also aimed in part at stopping the practice
of buying lapsed charters and starting businesses under their umbrella.
Repealed a century later in 1825, the Bubble Act generated only one known
133
case in the entire eighteenth century and therefore had minimal impact on
the practice of securities trading,70 although it likely discouraged to at least
a minor degree the evolution of joint-stock companies.
Although Parliament often debated serious reforms over the following
century, with the exception of a 1722 law that harshly punished (by death)
the forging or counterfeiting of a power to transfer securities, the only securities measure enacted in England during this time was Sir John Barnards
Act in 1834. Barnards Act was entitled An act to prevent the infamous
practice of stockjobbing, and aimed primarily at the more speculative
forms of securities trading, those involving time bargains (options). Its
primary remedy was to make such deals unenforceable. Because of the
general benet of options trading, Barnards Acts primary eect was not
to eliminate such trading, which apparently continued apace, but to impose
upon legitimate dealers losses caused by others who occasionally chose to
refuse to live up to their contracts. The evidence indicates that Barnards
Act had little impact on actual market practices, especially because courts
generally construed its application narrowly.71 Whatever impact it did have
was probably negative, restricting the ability of investors and others to
manage risk. By the 1770s, there was little or no active regulation of the
British nancial markets, as a philosophy of self-regulation took hold.
Markets did not ourish in this regulatory vacuum. Because of the high
risk and lack of information regarding private companies, investors preferred to put their money in government debt instruments.72
After more than a century of ineective regulation, Barnards Act was
repealed in 1860 at a time when large corporations were nally becoming
common, especially those building railroads. For the rst time, corporate
securities were becoming the most important investment instrument and
the need for a body of securities law was becoming evident. The United
Kingdom led the way. Other nations eventually followed, with the United
States adopting the rst fully comprehensive body of securities law in the
1930s. That body of law addressed issues of disclosure, fraud prevention,
insider trading, and, as amended 35 years later, tender oers.
Disclosure
Mandatory disclosure is a critical part of the securities laws of most developed nations. Before securities laws began requiring disclosure by corporations, corporate promoters and managers typically disclosed relatively
little information to either potential investors or current shareholders.73
Mahoney makes a persuasive case that the earliest forms of disclosure rules
were aimed at protecting investors from the multitude of ways in which promoters and managers could exploit information asymmetries to prot
134
unfairly. This lack of reliable and timely disclosure undoubtedly discouraged investment and thereby retarded development of broad capital
markets.74 Institution of mandatory disclosure has simultaneously mitigated this agency problem and created the conditions for the evolution of
large, ecient capital markets.
While the Italians invented double-entry bookkeeping, the British are
most responsible for modern nancial reporting. After the Bubble Act of
1720 was rescinded in 1825, joint-stock companies in England proliferated.
Unfortunately, these unregulated entities committed a noticeable amount of
fraud, so via the Joint-Stock Companies Registration, Incorporation and
Regulation Act of 1844, Parliament sought to minimize abuses by requiring
certain minimal disclosures and the ling of semi-annual audited balance
sheets with the Board of Trade. The Companies Clauses Consolidation Act
of 1845 further required rms to prepare a balance sheet 14 days prior to
any ordinary meeting of shareholders. However, these requirements were
soon allowed to lapse and were replaced by exhortations that companies
voluntarily make similar disclosures. This experiment with a system of voluntary disclosure, unfortunately, soon proved inadequate to protect
investors.75
The Overend Gurney bank collapse, which led to the Panic of 1866,
made it clear that corporate laws imposition of duciary duties upon promoters was insucient to protect investors. Parliament reacted in 1868 by
requiring promoters to disclose in their prospectuses information about
prior contracts entered into by the company, its promoters, directors, or
trustees. The Overend Gurney debacle ignited a debate over the mandatory
disclosure issue that lasted for 35 years. Parliament enacted laws that
required disclosure by railroads (1868), utilities (1871, 1882), and banks
(1879). Ultimately, this trend culminated in passage of the Companies Act
of 1900 that for the rst time required most public corporations to provide
audited nancial statements to their shareholders. A 1908 revision required
the statements to be led with the Board of Trade, but not until the
Companies Act of 1928 were requirements for the form and content of
nancial statements and for distribution to shareholders prior to meetings
fully in place.
As in England, American corporations made minimal disclosure in the
early 1800s.76 One observer wrote in 1840 that directors endeavor to keep
the stockholders and the public in the dark respecting the condition of the
corporation, while they are themselves in the light . . . They make no exhibit
to the stockholders of the actual condition of the market.77 The reasons
were quite clear and very self-serving. Because corporations made no
disclosures, their declarations of dividends were the clearest signal they sent
to the market regarding their progress.78 If a company was progressing well,
135
its directors could declare a small dividend, sending a negative signal to the
market. The stock price would drop and they could buy the shares up,
becoming major owners of a successful corporation. If the company was
struggling, the directors could declare a large dividend. The stock price
would rise, and they could sell their shares on favorable terms and thereby
bail out of a failing enterprise.79
Although in the late 1800s regulators required railroads and utilities to
make regular reports of their nancial condition, most of Americas other
leading corporations maintained the utmost secrecy, either as a matter of
tradition, or on the grounds of competition.80 The prevailing corporate
philosophy was publicly displayed in testimony before the Industrial
Commission in 1899 by Henry O. Havemeyer, president of the American
Sugar Rening Company, who was asked whether he believed that the
public had no right to know what his companys earning power was and no
right to inspect its books before blindly buying his companys stock. His
response was:
Yes; that is my theory. Let the buyer beware; that covers the whole business. You
cannot wet-nurse people from the time they are born until the day they die. They
have got to wade in and get stuck and that is the way men are educated and cultivated.81
Between the turn of the century and 1933, some companies began to disclose more information, largely because they faced being compelled to do
so if they did not do so voluntarily. Indeed, in 1905, the Equitable Life
Assurance Society announced that it was adopting a new policy of having
its nancial statements audited, giving as reasons a desire to restore
investors condence and to avoid restrictive regulation.82
While voluntary disclosure improved somewhat and the New York
Stock Exchange (NYSE) started to impose disclosure requirements on its
listing companies before the federal securities laws were passed,83 these
changes were motivated by a series of state and federal investigations and
proposals for legislation that the companies and the NYSE were attempting to forestall. Absent credible threats of government regulation, it is not
clear at all that companies disclosure practices would have improved or
that the NYSE would have increased its disclosure requirements for listed
companies.
Unfortunately, the NYSE indierently enforced the disclosure rules that
it did adopt.84 For example, one of the most infamous scandals of the time
involving Ivar (the Match King) Kreuger that began before and ended
after the great crash of 1929was made possible by Kreugers total
secrecy.85 When auditors questioned him, he simply refused to answer any
136
of the questions or provide any of the information that would have disclosed his Ponzi scheme. Kreuger, Samuel Insull, and other great fraudsters
of the time had no fear that independent auditors would be called in.86
The NYSE was not keen to delist some of its most popular companies.
Notwithstanding the voluntary eorts of companies and the
requirements of the NYSE, Laurence Sloans exhaustive study of the
nancial disclosures of major American corporations right before the 1929
crash concluded that industrial nancial reports were woefully inadequate, lacking uniformity and meaningful explanation.87 Indeed, he concluded that [i]n several important respects, no criticism of the abuses that
exist can be too harsh.88 The typical oering circular before passage of the
1933 Act contained get rich quick promises, but very little useful information about the securities, the planned use of proceeds, or even the background of the issuer itself.89
After the 1929 stock market crash, Congress held hearings which indicated that various state eorts at securities regulation, dating back to
Kansass 1911 adoption of the rst blue sky law, had been truly inadequate. In response, Congress passed six major securities laws, two of which
the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
contained particularly important disclosure requirements that laid the
predicate for much of todays regulatory philosophy. As noted, these two
Acts together constitute the rst truly comprehensive securities regulation
scheme ever enacted.
As noted earlier, the 1933 Securities Act regulated the initial oering
process. When corporations issued securities to the public, they were
required by the Act to either t the transaction within one of several available exemptions or to le a registration statement with the SEC. The contents of the registration statement would be distributed to potential
investors in preliminary and nal prospectuses that would contain more
useful information than those used before. The required contents of the
new prospectuses were patterned on the United Kingdoms Companies
Acts of 1928 and 1929 and focused on the nature of the company, its
nancial status, the background of its principals, the characteristics of the
instruments to be issued, and other relevant information.
Next, Congress enacted the 1934 Securities Exchange Act which, among
many other provisions, regulated disclosure in the secondary securities
markets. The 1934 Act came to require periodic disclosure in the form of
annual, quarterly, and interim reports. It also required disclosure at the
time of corporate directors elections and votes regarding signicant
organic changes to the corporate form. In 1968, it was amended to require
further disclosure in the event of a tender oer. In 2002, Congress passed
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act that had several provisions aimed at ensuring the
137
accuracy of nancial disclosures made in the 1934 Acts required periodic

reports. Although Mahoney may be correct that the 1933 Act focused
narrowly upon the agency problem presented by information asymmetry
between promoters and investors, it seems clear that the 1934 Act, especially given its evolution over the years, focuses upon providing shareholders with the means to accurately price shares when making investment
decisions. These Acts helped restore investor condence. As noted in
Chapter 2, there is substantial empirical evidence that these disclosure provisions also improved stock market eciency.
Although the Enron debacle made many question the US approach to
disclosure and other securities issues, Congress passed the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act in June 2002 to rearm and extend this commitment to disclosure.
More disclosure rather than less was the prescription, just as a crime wave
leads to more streetlights and more cops on the beat, not fewer. The eects
of Sarbanes-Oxley are discussed in greater detail in Chapter 6.
The civil law nations have had a dierent tradition than England and the
United States. With more government involvement in corporate ownership
(in France) or more central bank involvement (in Germany and Japan),
there has been less focus on creating the conditions for broad and deep
capital markets. In France, for example, there was no identiable body of
securities law until 1967 or so. Since that time, however, its disclosure rules
have gradually developed as French lawmakers sought to facilitate development of French capital markets. Particularly important to this evolution was creation of government agencies (such as the Commission des
Operations de BourseCOB) that, like the SEC in America, have increasingly been given authority to require disclosure and monitor disclosure
practices. Disclosure practices are still spottier than in the United States
and United Kingdom, but are increasingly comprehensive.
As early as the Stock Exchange Act of 1896, Germany had disclosure
requirements and liability for fraud in prospectuses. However, overall it is
fair to say that enforcement of German disclosure rules has been inconsistent and the Frankfurt Stock Exchanges disclosure rules have traditionally
been lax. Large banks with bargaining power to gain the information they
needed have dominated the capital-providing process. Given the relatively
minor role played by individual investors, mandatory disclosure was traditionally give short shrift. Recently, however, Germany has undertaken disclosure reforms in an attempt to broaden the base of investors in German
companies. For example, the Frankfurt exchange established a new stock
market for high tech stocks, the Neuer Markt. To make investors comfortable, the Neuer Markt featured more rigorous disclosure requirements than
the Frankfurt Exchange. For a time the new market ew very high, but
good intentions were insucient and a failure to enforce the disclosure and
138
antifraud rules led the Neuer Markt to collapse in a wave of scandals and
go out of business.
Although European companies and countries (particularly Germany)
have complained about the Sarbanes-Oxley Acts international applications, in their own EU studies and decisions they have been moving in the
same direction. For example, the recently-promulgated Organization for
Economic Co-operation and Developments (OECDs) Principles of
Corporate Governance recommend a US-style system of mandatory disclosure.90 In Asia, Japan and China have both increased mandatory disclosure in recent years as they have sought to move toward the transparency
of Western markets. Korea as well has adopted disclosure provisions patterned after both the 1933 Act and the 1934 Act.
While it is certainly possible to require ineciently comprehensive corporate disclosures, the trend in all successful modern capital economies has
been toward more and prompter required disclosure by corporations.
Experience has taught all sensible governments that voluntary disclosure
will generally be inadequate. Less successful capital markets have emulated
more successful capital markets by moving in the direction of requiring
substantial corporate disclosure.
While some academics have been engaged in an ideological debate
regarding whether mandatory disclosure is really needed, governments
worldwide have uniformly concluded that comprehensive and comparable
corporate disclosure facilitates international capital ows. For example, an
important part of disclosure is accounting. It is costly for companies that
sell their securities in several nations to have to disclose their nancial situation in several dierent accounting formats. It is also inecient for
investors to have to compare statements that are presented in dierent
formats. Therefore, by 2005, all European-listed companies must use the
international accounting standards (IAS) and the SEC and EU are working
toward accounting convergence between these international standards and
American GAAP.
Misrepresentations
Both common law nations and civil law nations punished fraud in commercial transactions well before the creation of modern securities laws.
Nonetheless, a major feature of modern securities regulation has been an
increased emphasis on preventing and punishing fraud and misrepresentation in securities transactions. The Dutch may well have lost their preeminent position as nanciers of capital markets that they enjoyed during the
1600s and much of the 1700s by failing to create regulatory bodies or otherwise to protect investors from securities fraud and unfair dealing.91 Other
139
nations have learned from this apparent historical lesson. Again, the
United Kingdom and the United States, which have been the leaders in
developing deep and uid capital markets, were also the rst to put in the
legal infrastructure needed to accomplish that task.
After the 1825 repeal of the Bubble Act, joint-stock companies
ourished in England. Unfortunately, unscrupulous promoters used jointstock companies to launch fraudulent business enterprises.92 English
common law provided two basic remedies for a purchaser of securities who
relied upon an inaccurate representation93 a suit for deceit or one for
rescission. In Derry v. Peek,94 the House of Lords held that directors could
be liable for false statements in a prospectus only if the purchaser could
show their bad intent. Parliament thereafter enacted the Directors
Liability Act of 1890 which created liability for such misstatements even
absent scienter. However, investors were protected only by their own
civil actions, as the Board of Trade and its subsidiary, the Registrar of
Companies, were essentially sunshine agencies that could require the ling
of periodic nancial reports but had little enforcement power to cope with
fraud.95
Americas common law remedies were similar to Englands. In part
because of the perceived inadequacy of the common law fraud remedy as
applied to securities transactions, in 1911 American states began to enact
civil and criminal provisions in their blue sky laws in order to target fraud
involving securities specically. However, these state provisions were generally ineectively enforced for several reasons, including that the statutes
were typically riddled with exceptions, the state regulators lacked adequate
budgets and enforcement sophistication, and defendants knew that they
could usually evade the proscriptions by operating across state lines.
The weakness of the common law and state remedies made enactment of
comprehensive federal remedies in the 1930s particularly noteworthy.
When Congress passed the 1933 Act, it borrowed from Parliaments
Directors Liability Act of 1890 in enacting section 11, which made directors, underwriters, auditors, and others potentially liable on a negligence
basis for damages caused by false statements in a prospectus. These defendants have the burden of proving that they acted with due care. The issuing
company is liable for misstatements on a strict liability basis, similar to
Englands common law action for rescission. Section 11 was viewed as
potentially so onerous by securities professionals that they predicted in
1933 that it would cause grass to grow on Wall Street. This proved an exaggeration, especially because the rst major damages action under the provision did not reach the courts for 30 years. However, after the mid-1960s,
section 11 reliably provided injured investors with a damages remedy for
false statements, at least in initial public oerings.
140
The 1933 Securities Act also provided a criminal sanction, enforceable

by the Department of Justice, for any person who intentionally violated any
provision of the Act, including that forbidding false statements in the
prospectus. Section 12 and section 17 of the 1933 Act also provided proscriptions against misrepresentations in broader contexts than just the
prospectus, and an intentional violation of those provisions was also obviously a crime. Again, until at least the 1960s, there were virtually no criminal actions undertaken pursuant to these provisions.
The 1934 Securities Exchange Act contains the most potent securities
fraud provision ever enacted in section 10(b). As noted in earlier chapters,
it broadly punishes misstatements made intentionally or recklessly in any
contextprimary market or secondary market, public company or private
companyand by any actor (buyer, seller, issuer, auditor, ocer, director,
etc.). An intentional violation is also punishable in a criminal action by the
Department of Justice. The penalties have always been substantial, but
were recently increased signicantly by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (including
nes of up to US$5 million and incarceration for as long as 20 years for
individuals).
Despite the severity of the criminal punishments under the 1933 and
1934 Acts, the most fearsome and unique feature of American securities
fraud law is procedural rather than substantive in nature. It is the civil class
action suit for damages. This devices procedural benets were spelled out
in Chapter 2 and evidence of its benets will be demonstrated in Chapter
5. Suce it to say here, that evolution of the law of section 10(b) cause of
action created a securities fraud remedy many times more potent than any
that existed before anywhere in the world.
Obviously, fraud is morally reprehensible and economically inecient.
The bigger question is whether the American class action lawsuit has
become an in terrorem device that does more harm than good. Does it give
plaintis attorneys a club with which to extract settlements in frivolous
suits? Does it unnecessarily distort normal corporate disclosure practices?
Does it discourage honest people from serving in positions, such as corporate director, that are necessary for economic success? As noted earlier,
in 1995, Congress listened to the debate and decided that the class action
device was excessive and passed legislation, the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA), that made it more dicult for plaintis
to win such suits and more dicult for plaintis attorneys to prot from
them. A few years later, many argued that the PSLRA had sent a sign to
corporate actors that the government was not serious about fraud prevention, helping to give rise to the Enron asco. Then Congress heard more
testimony and, in passing the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, reached decidedly
opposite conclusions on these issues than it had reached in 1995. It
141
strengthened the SEC, added criminal provisions, increased punishments

for preexisting criminal provisions, and made it easier for defrauded
investors to sue for damages.
While no other nation has as powerful a brace of remedies for securities
fraud as does the United States, the irresistible trend around the world for
the past several years has been, and remains, toward creating more eective
enforcement agencies, enabling injured investors to sue to protect their
interests, and stiening penalties for securities fraud. European nations, for
example, tend not to have the tradition of either a strong SEC-like agency
to enforce securities laws or a healthy and well-rewarded plaintis bar to
bring private civil actions. But after considerable study, the EU nations are
moving toward the American model, given its perceived success.
In recent years, every EU member has created a version of the SEC. The
United Kingdom has created the Financial Services Authority (FSA),
Germany the Bundesanstalt fur Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht (BAWe),
France the Autorites des Marches Financiers, and Spain the Comision
Nacional del Mercado de Valores. Some have argued that one European
super-SEC would be an optimal approach, and few doubt the wisdom of
creating agencies to enforce European securities laws. Asian nations have
followed suit, as, for example, China has created the China Securities
Regulatory Commission (CSRC), Japan the Financial Supervisory Agency
(FSA), and Korea the Financial Supervisory Commission (FSC).
Most of these nations have also strengthened antifraud rules and
strengthened shareholders ability to protect their own interests. For
example, the EC Public Oer Prospectus Directive of 1989 required
member nations to adopt a system of mandatory disclosure for public
oerings and punishment for misrepresentations analogous to the 1933
Securities Act. In the last decade or so, Germany has expanded the authority of regulators and reduced roadblocks to the right of defrauded investors
to sue on their own behalf. Japan, China, and other Asian nations have also
adopted American-style securities fraud statutes and strengthened shareholder rights. The lesson history has taught these regulators is that fraud
undermines the development of capital markets and stronger measures to
combat it will ultimately pay dividends by making markets more attractive
to investors.
Insider Trading
Although insider trading rules seek to remedy an agency problemthe use
of corporate information to benet a few select insiders rather than to
benet all shareholderssuch rules are typically treated as securities laws
rather than corporate laws. Historically, there existed little regulation of
142
insider trading until passage of federal securities laws in America in the

1930s. The American common law of tort did provide a limited remedy in
deceit for insider trading where the buyer and seller met face-to-face, but
this remedy was of little use in most market transactions, where both buyer
and seller acted through a stockbroker. When evidence adduced at the hearings leading to passage of the 1933 and 1934 Acts led Congress to conclude
that insider trading by public company ocials was a serious problem, it
responded by putting section 16 into the 1934 Exchange Act. This provision, enforceable only by a public company or a shareholder acting on its
behalf, essentially prevents ocers, directors, or holders of 10 percent of
the companys securities from retaining prots on short-swing transactions, which are dened as purchases and sales which occur within six
months of each other. Six months is presumed to be the limit of the useful
life of inside information, and ocers, directors, and 10 percent holders are
presumed to be the sorts of people who would have access to such information. Therefore, section 16(b) requires a defendant to disgorge to the
company any prot made (or loss avoided) when he or she sells company
stock within six months of buying the stock and makes a prot (or avoids
a loss). Section 16(a) seeks to make the provision easily enforceable by
requiring these company insiders to le with the SEC records of their purchases and sales. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act substantially shortened the
deadline for ling these reports.
Because neither the SEC nor the Department of Justice can enforce
section 16(b) and because its remedy is only disgorgement of prots, the
truly signicant insider trading provision in America has come to be section
10(b)the broad antifraud provision of the 1934 Actas supplemented
by various statutory provisions such as the Insider Trading Sanctions Act
of 1984 and the Insider Trading Securities Fraud and Enforcement Act of
1988. Section 10(b) was not used to punish insider trading until the late
1960s. During the late 1970s and early 1980s, however, insider trading fraud
became a major Congressional and SEC priority, based on the theory that
investors would not want to play the game if they believed that it was
rigged in favor of insiders.
A raft of civil and criminal cases slowly created a distinct body of interpretive case law (neither Congressional statutes nor SEC rules dene
insider trading for fear of creating a standard that clever defendants could
evade via technicalities). As the law now stands, four types of defendants
can be held criminally or civilly liable for insider trading:
a.
company insiders (employees of the company who by virtue of their

employment owe a duciary duty of fairness to shareholders and
potential shareholders);
143
b.
temporary insiders (individuals such as outside auditors and attorneys

who learn company information for a business purpose and thereby
temporarily assume the same duciary duty as traditional or company
insiders);
c. misappropriators (people who use inside information to trade in
breach of a duciary duty that they owe to the source of the information); and
d. tippees of any of the rst three categories or of other tippees, for the
law does not allow insiders to prot by trading indirectly through
friends, family members, or others.
Although civil damages actions are occasionally brought by investors
against inside traders, the law has evolved so that the primary remedies are
civil actions by the SEC (which can force disgorgement of illicit prots and
impose nes of up to three times the amount of those prots) and criminal
actions by the Department of Justice (now carrying the potential for nes
of up to US$5 million for an individual and a term of imprisonment as long
as 20 years).
For quite a long time only the United States showed any particular interest in punishing insider trading. During the 1980s and 1990s, as American
insider trading defendants often attempted to hide their misdeeds by using
foreign brokerages and foreign bank accounts and as foreign investors
occasionally used inside information to trade on US stock exchanges and
thereby subvert their integrity, the SEC sought to persuade other nations
to enact and enforce insider trading laws. In 1989, an EU Council Directive
mandated that Member States enact insider trading rules meeting specic
standards. Since that time, developed nations across Europe and Asia have
virtually all enacted US-style insider trading laws and have even begun
enforcing them from time to time. A consensus has developed that insider
trading is ethically unfair and that in practical terms it undermines the
development of capital markets by discouraging outsiders from playing
the game that they perceive to be rigged.
Takeovers
When the directors of Company A and Company B decide to merge,
American shareholders are protected from the adverse consequences
of such a major change by rules that (a) require that the merger be proposed by a majority of directors who, of course, owe a duciary duty to
the shareholders; (b) require that shareholders be given an opportunity to
vote on the transaction and that at least a majority (and in some states a
super-majority) of those shareholders approve it; and (c) give dissenting
144
shareholders the right to have their shares bought by their company at a

judicially-determined fair price. Shareholders in most other developed
nations receive roughly comparable protections.
When the directors of Company B resist the entreaties of Company As
directors by rejecting merger talks and signaling an intent to stay independent, Company As directors may resolve to pursue a tender oer wherein
they bypass Company Bs directors and go straight to its shareholders with
an oer to buy their shares at a premium over market price. By way of this
tender oer, Company A hopes to gain voting control of Company B and,
often, to follow with a freeze-out merger in order to eliminate minority
shareholders and gain 100 percent ownership of Company B.
Dierent attitudes toward the economic wisdom of tender oers are
reected in a diversity of takeover rules scattered around the globe.
American law has been the most inuential. Tender oers are a relatively
new phenomenon, unknown for most of corporate history. Until 1968, there
was no explicit federal regulation of tender oers in the United States. That
changed during a wave of tender oers in the 1960s when Congress decided
that tender oers could be unfair and coercive. Therefore, in 1968, Congress
passed the Williams Act, which does not attempt to either discourage or
encourage tender oers. Nor does it seek to favor oerors seeking to
eectuate tender oers nor targets resisting them. The Williams Act:
a.
imposes substantive duties, such as the best price rule, requiring

oerors to pay to all shareholders the best price that they oer to any
shareholder in a tender oer;
b. imposes procedural requirements, such as a 20-business-day minimum
hold-open period so that all shareholders have the opportunity to seek
out and process information about the wisdom of the transaction;
c. creates disclosure requirements to ensure that shareholders will have
the information that Congress and the SEC deem critical for their decision; and
d. establishes antifraud rules that punish any party (oeror, target, or
third party) who misleads shareholders during a tender oer, supplementing section 10(b) in this regard.
The Williams Act policy foundations are level playing eld, equal treatment of target shareholders, full disclosure, and fraud prevention.
Potential target companies, which desired substantive protection from
tender oers of the type that the Williams Act refused to grant, petitioned
state legislatures for assistance and most of those legislatures initially
enacted their own versions of the Williams Act that contained substantive
provisions that tilted the scale decidedly toward the target company and
145
made it much harder for oerors to eectuate these takeovers. For example,
some of these laws required oerors to warn targets substantially in advance
of launching a takeover and to hold the oers open much longer than the
federal minimum of 20 business days. Both provisions had the eect of
making the takeover more expensive for the oeror and giving the oeree
substantial extra time to implement legal defenses. These state laws were
declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court under the American
Constitutions Supremacy Clause because in a clash between federal law and
state laws, federal law is to prevail.96 However, the states passed more rounds
of legislation, this time framing their laws as corporate laws rather than
securities laws and eliminating provisions that nakedly contradicted
Williams Act provisions. Corporate law has always been traditionally within
the states bailiwick in the American system whereas since 1933 federal law
has dominated the securities eld (although, as noted above, any boundary
between the two is necessarily articial). These second generation state
takeover laws have passed Constitutional muster.97
These new state rules, coupled with preexisting state corporate law rules
regarding mergers and other organic corporate changes, clearly aected the
takeover landscape. Consider Delaware, as one example of a variety of
dierent state approaches. Delaware law discourages takeovers by imposing several requirements upon an oeror that make it dicult to complete
a takeover. For example, any oeror seeking more than a certain percentage of shares cannot complete a freeze-out merger for at least three years.
This is cumbersome and discouraging to the oeror. However, the law contains exceptions and allows immediate eectuation of a freeze-out merger
if, for example, a high percentage of shares are purchased and all shareholders, including those whose shares are purchased in the freeze-out
merger, receive the same premium over market price. This provision
advances fair treatment.
Although judicial interpretation of the duciary duty owed by target
company directors to shareholders currently forbids Delaware directors in a
takeover from considering any goal other than attaining the highest price for
shareholders once they have decided a change of control of some type should
occur, the statutes of many states allow (and of at least one state requires)
target directors to consider the interests of other constituencies as well when
plotting strategy. Thus, target directors could consider the interests of their
employees, their customers, and the communities in which they have operations in deciding whether a tender oer should be accommodated or resisted.
Takeovers were much less frequent in Europe than in the United States,
so takeover law there is less developed. However, the Vodafone hostile
tender oer for control of Mannesmann in 2001 is symbolic of a new era.
Hostile takeovers have come to the Continent and, as in America, few
146
issues have been more controversial among EU rulemakers. EU member

nations have traditionally taken very diverse approaches to takeover law. In
the United Kingdom, a pro-takeover environment exists and hostile oers
are common. The process is regulated by the Panel on Takeovers and
Mergers operating pursuant to the City Code on Takeovers and Mergers.
Shareholders of the target company must be allowed to decide whether the
oer is accepted. Takeover defenses by target boards are generally prohibited. On the other hand, rules encourage equal treatment of minority shareholders by stipulating that no person may cross a dened ownership
threshold without making a tender oer for all the target rms shares.
France has little tradition of hostile takeovers, so its takeover law is
nascent. In broad outline it seems slightly more target-protective than US
law. Because German managers are given a long-term mandate, German
law has generally been more protective of potential target companies than
the laws of other European nations. Management supervision comes more
from banks than from shareholders. Therefore, a pro-target atmosphere
reigns as does a reluctance to impede defense maneuvers. Similarly, Dutch
law generally allows target boards to just say no.
The EU has pursued a 15-year eort to encourage all members to adopt
a common approach to takeovers. In general, the favored approach has
been an American-style regime that would generally allow the market to
decide whether oers should succeed or fail with a minimum of government interference. However, many nations, with Germany leading the way,
resisted this free market solution. Ultimately, in December 2003 the
European Commission adopted such a tortured compromise as to be not
worth the paper it was written on. Rather than banning poison pills and
other takeover defenses, the new takeover code allows each nation to decide
whether or not to allow such defenses.
Turning to Asia, Japan has adopted American-style takeover law.
However, so few hostile takeovers have occurred in Japan that the subject
remains largely academic, though hotly debated. China also has little experience with hostile takeovers, but has recently adopted American-style regulations in an attempt to change an environment that had discouraged the
takeover process. As in Japan, the culture of Korea is not inviting to hostile
takeovers, and the nation had little experience with takeovers until 1998.
Koreas takeover law is patterned heavily after the Williams Act and has
been amended in recent years with the purpose of making takeovers easier
to execute.
The inability of European nations to harmonize their laws, the inconsistency of approach between the generally neutral US federal government
and the generally anti-takeover state governments, and the bitter disputes
among academics make it clear that there currently exists no consensus as
147
to whether the capital markets are bettered or undermined by liberal treatment of hostile takeovers. Most interested observers support giving tender
oerors a free rein, for hostile bids provide market discipline to managers
of corporations. If they do not do a good job, their companys market price
will drop, leaving the rm particularly vulnerable to a tender oer. Others
believe that waves of takeovers are typically followed by waves of divestitures, because most acquisitions do not work out well. Shareholders of the
target corporation prosper; shareholders of the acquiring rm suer.
Investment bankers do well both in the takeover transaction and in the
divestiture. There is some evidence that hubris by ocers of the acquiring
corporation is an important factor in hostile takeovers. In any event, the
evidence is inconclusive and the debate is complex and ongoing. The
general trend, as with mandatory disclosure, fraud prevention, and insider
trading, has been toward the American model that is at least marginally
facilitative of hostile takeovers.
CONCLUSION
If a benevolent, enlightened ruler of a developing nation were granted just
one wish by a magic djinn, he or she should not choose natural resources,
or a brace of modern manufacturing plants, or a plethora of Western management consultants. Rather, the enlightened wish would be for the rule of
law. History demonstrates that nothing is more important to economic
development than a stable legal system that enforces contracts, preserves
property rights, and punishes fraud.
Once economic actors are protected by the rule of law, they can begin to
realize their dreams. If they dream big, they will need corporations. These
are a critical institution for coordinating large economic enterprises.
Corporate law authorizes and, if properly drafted, enables corporate formation and growth. Governments constantly tweak their corporate law to
strike a proper balance between limited liability for investors and fair protection for creditors, between discretion for managers and control by shareholders, between adequate compensation and incentives for managers and
protection from looting for shareholders. History has not written the nal
chapter on the proper mix of incentives and protections in corporate law,
but increasingly, there is a consensus that with substantial cultural variation, best practices in corporate governance will include strong protection for minority shareholders, active monitoring of the day-to-day
managers by a relatively independent board of directors, and some additional mix of devices that will allow minority shareholders an eective
voice in corporate aairs or an ecient and fair means of exit.
148
Well before Enron or the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the Vienot Report (1999)98
in France concluded that French law provided insucient protection for
average investors and that French capital markets could be strengthened by
implementing a series of recommendations that resemble Sarbanes-Oxleys
prescriptionsmore independent directors, a board committee to deal
with critical subjects such as audit and compensation, increased information and responsibility for directors, and more disclosure for shareholders to increase their involvement in company decisions.99 The previous
Marini Report also recommended French adoption of Anglo-Saxon style
reforms.100 Various EU studies have recommended European harmonization of prospectus liability, insider trading rules, tender oer rules, and
other areas, and that harmonization has almost always converged upon
current American legal practice. France can outlaw insider trading and
create a French SEC, but when the United States has scores of enforcement
actions annually and France has only the occasional one, markets are going
to be more inviting to investors in the United States. History shows that the
content of the law is not sucient to stimulate markets, but it certainly is
necessary.
NOTES
1. O. Lee Reed, Law, the Rule of Law, and Property: Foundations for the Private Market and
Business Study, 38 AM. BUS. L. J. 441, 449 (2001).
2. Douglass North, INSTITUTIONS, INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE AND ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE 46 (1990).
3. Reed, supra note 1, at 441 (quoting Davis).
4. Avner Greif, Contract Enforceability and Economic Institutions in Early Trade: The
Maghribi Traders Coalition, 83 AM. ECON. REV. 525 (1993).
5. E. Allan Farnsworth, CONTRACTS 1112 (1982).
6. Id. at 2021.
7. Philip M. Nichols, A Legal Theory of Emerging Economies, 39 VA. J. INTL. L. 229,
26465 (1999).
8. James Surowiecki, THE WISDOM OF CROWDS: WHY THE MANY ARE
SMARTER THAN THE FEW AND HOW COLLECTIVE WISDOM SHAPES
BUSINESS, ECONOMIES, SOCIETIES, AND NATIONS 121 (2004).
9. Id. at 124.
10. Hernando de Soto, THE MYSTERY OF CAPITAL: WHY CAPITALISM TRIUMPHS IN THE WEST AND FAILS EVERYWHERE ELSE 510 (2000).
11. Simon H. Johnson, John McMillan, and Christopher Woodru, Property Rights and
Finance, Stanford Law and Economics Olin Working Paper No. 231 (March 2002).
12. De Soto, supra note 10, at 71.
13. Douglass North, STRUCTURE AND CHANGE IN ECONOMIC HISTORY 14757
(1981).
14. Charles Cadwell, Forword to Mancur Olson, POWER AND PROSPERITY viii (2000).
15. Ronald H. Coase, The Institutional Structure of Production, in NOBEL LECTURES IN
ECONOMIC SCIENCE 11, 17 (Torsten Persson ed. 1997).
16. Reed, supra note 1, at 459.
149
17. Charles I. Jones, Was an Industrial Revolution Inevitable? Economic Growth Over the Very
Long Run, 1 ADVANCES IN MACROECONOMICS 1028 (No. 2, 2001).
18. Fareed Zakaria, Lousy Advice Has Its Price, NEWSWEEK, September 27, 1999, at 40.
19. Jean Domat, I THE CIVIL CODE IN ITS NATURAL ORDERS (1850 William
Strahan (trans.), republished Fred B. Rothman & Co., Colorado Springs, CO, 1980).
20. Stuart Banner, ANGLO-AMERICAN SECURITIES REGULATION: CULTURAL
AND POLITICAL ROOTS, 1690860, 117 (1998).
21. Id. at 236, citing Bacon v. Sanford, 1 Root 164, 165 (Conn. 1790).
22. (1789) 100 Eng. Rep. 450.
23. PROSSER AND KEETON ON TORTS 728 (5th ed. 1984).
24. Banner, Supra note 20, at 117.
25. Joseph Angell & Samuel Ames, TREATISE ON THE LAW OF PRIVATE CORPORATIONS AGGREGATE (1832, reprint, N.Y. Arno Press, 1972), cited in Douglas
Arner, Development of the American Law of Corporations to 1932, 55 SMU L. REV.
32 (2002).
26. Timur Kuran, WHY THE ISLAMIC MIDDLE EAST DID NOT GENERATE AN
INDIGENOUS CORPORATE LAW 30 (2004).
27. John Micklethwait & Adrian Wooldridge, THE COMPANY: A SHORT HISTORY OF
A REVOLUTIONARY IDEA 56 (2003).
28. Id. at xxi.
29. Id. at xx (quoting Butler).
30. John Kay, CULTURE AND PROSPERITY: THE TRUTH ABOUT MARKETS:
WHY SOME NATIONS ARE RICH BUT MOST REMAIN POOR 322 (2004).
31. Quoted in Anthony Sampson, COMPANY MAN: THE RISE AND FALL OF CORPORATE LIFE 19 (1995).
32. Margaret M. Blari & Lynn A. Stout, A Team Production Theory of Corporate Law, 85
VA. L. REV. 247 (1999).
33. Margaret M. Blair, Locking in Capital: What Corporations Law Achieved for Business
Organizers in the 19th Century, 51 UCLA L. REV. 387, 395 (2003).
34. Ranald C. Michie, THE LONDON STOCK EXCHANGE: A HISTORY 17 (1999).
35. Douglas Arner, Development of the American Law of Corporations to 1832, 55 S.M.U.
L. REV. 23, 44 (2002).
36. 10 U.S. (6 Cranch) 87 (1810).
37. 17 U.S. (4 Wheat ) 518 (1819).
38. Arner, supra note 35, at 49, citing R. Kent Newmyer, Justice Joseph Storys Doctrine of
Public and Private Corporations and the Rise of the American Business Corporation, 25
DEPAUL L. REV. 825, 828 (1976).
39. Henry Hansmann & Reinier Kraakman, THE ANATOMY OF CORPORATE LAW
10 (2004).
40. William J. Bernstein, THE BIRTH OF PLENTY: HOW THE PROSPERITY OF THE
MODERN WORLD WAS CREATED 150 (2004).
41. Blair, supra note 33, at 393.
42. Id. at 441.
43. Micklethwait & Wooldridge, supra note 27, at 82.
44. Adam Smith, 2 AN INQUIRY INTO THE NATURE AND CAUSES OF THE
WEALTH OF NATIONS 733 (Oxford University Press, 1976).
45. Adolph A. Berle, Jr. & Gardiner C. Means, THE MODERN CORPORATION AND
PRIVATE PROPERTY (1932).
46. Alfred F. Conard, The Supervision of Comparative Management: A Comparison of
Developments in European and United States Law, 82 MICH. L. REV. 1459 (1984).
47. James A. Fanto, The Role of Corporate Law in French Corporate Governance, 31
CORNELL INTL L.J. 31, 53 (1998).
48. John C. Coee, Jr., Privatization and Corporate Governance: The Lessons from Securities
Market Failure, 25 IOWA J. CORP. L. 1, 2829 (1999).
49. Bernard Black, et al., Liability Risk for Outside Directors: A Cross-Border Analysis
(2004).
150
50. Fanto, supra, note 47, at 50.

51. R v. Fraternity of Hostman (1702) 93 Eng. Rep. 1142.
52. Randall S. Thomas, Improving Shareholder Monitoring of Corporate Management by
Expanding Statutory Access to Information, 38 ARIZ. L. REV. 331, 337 (1996).
53. Leslie L. Cooney, A Modality for Accountability to Shareholders: The American Way?,
28 OKLA. CITY U. L. REV. 717 (2003).
54. Henry Hansmann & Reinier Kraakman, The Essential Role of Organizational Law, 110
YALE L.J. 387, 393 (2000).
55. Blair, supra note 23, at 39293.
56. Hansmann & Kraakman, supra note 54, at 405.
57. 30 F.Cas. 435, 1824 U.S. App. LEXIS 422 (1824).
58. Henry Hansmann & Reinier Kraakman, The End of History for Corporate Law, 89
GEO. L.J. 439 (2001).
59. Peter Montagnon, A Short and Simple Regime for Corporate Europe, FINANCIAL
TIMES, September 2, 2004, at 13.
60. William J. Bernstein, THE BIRTH OF PLENTY: HOW THE PROSPERITY OF THE
MODERN WORLD WAS CREATED 23 (2004).
61. Stephen Ambrose, UNDAUNTED COURAGE 52 (1996).
62. Bernstein, supra note 60, at 16.
63. Id. at 159.
64. Banner, supra note 20, at 1.
65. Charles P. Kindleberger, MANIAS, PANICS, AND CRASHES: A HISTORY OF
FINANCIAL CRISES 10910 (4th ed. 2000).
66. Edward Chancellor, DEVIL TAKE THE HINDMOST: A HISTORY OF FINANCIAL SPECULATION 5895 (1999).
67. Jonathan B. Baskin & Paul J. Miranti, Jr., A HISTORY OF CORPORATE FINANCE
113 (1997).
68. Banner, supra note 20, at 3940.
69. Id. at 29, quoting Journal of the House of Commons, 11:595 (Nov. 25, 1996).
70. Id. at 5687.
71. Id. at 1017.
72. Baskin & Miranti, supra note 67, at 122.
73. Paul Mahoney, Mandatory Disclosure as a Solution to Agency Problems, 62 U. CHI. L.
REV. 1047 (1995).
75. Id. at 140.
77. Daniel Raymond, THE ELEMENTS OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND POLITICAL ECONOMY 276 (4th ed. 1840), quoted in Banner, supra note 20, at 200.
79. E.S. Abdy, JOURNAL OF A RESIDENCE AND TOUR IN THE UNITED STATES
OF NORTH AMERICA 4243 (1935), quoted in Banner, supra note 20, at 201.
80. Matthew Josephson, Infrequent Corporation Reports Keep Investors in Dark, 36 MAG.
OF WALL ST. 302, 303 (June 20, 1925) (quoting NYSE economist Edward Meeker).
81. Quoted in Richard P. Brief, Corporate Financial Reporting at the Turn of the Century, J.
ACCTCY. 14445 (May 1987).
82. Id. at 147.
83. Roberta Romano, THE ADVANTAGE OF COMPETITIVE FEDERALISM FOR
SECURITIES REGULATION 16 (2002).
84. Joel Seligman, THE TRANSFORMATION OF WALL STREET 47 (rev. ed. 1995).
85. John Kenneth Galbraith, THE GREAT CRASH 1929, 8283 (1979).
86. Gary J. Previts & Barbara D. Merino, A HISTORY OF ACCOUNTANCY IN THE
UNITED STATES: THE CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE OF ACCOUNTING 267
(1998).
87. Laurence H. Sloan, CORPORATION PROFITS 33337 (1929).
88. Id. at 334.
151
89. Thomas A. Halleran & John N. Calderwood, Eect of Federal Regulation on Distribution
of and Trading in Securities, 28 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 86, 94 (1959).
90. See Ad Hoc Task Force on Corporate Governance, OECD Principles of Corporate
Governance (April 16, 1999), available at www.oecd.org/daf/governance/principles.htm.
91. Bernstein, supra note 60, at 146.
93. Mahoney, supra note 73, at 1088.
94. 4 App. Case 337 (HL 1889) (Halsbury opinion).
96. Edgar v. Mite Corp., 457 U.S. 624 (1982).
97. CTS Corp. v. Dynamics Corp. of America, 481 U.S. 69 (1987).
98. Assn Francaise Des Entreprises Privees AFEP, Recommendations of the Committee on
Corporate Governance 39 (1999), available at www.ecgi.org/codes/countrydocuments/
france/vienot2 en.pdf.
99. Fanto, supra note 47, at 8687.
100. Philippe Marini, La modernisation du droit des societes, Rapport au premier ministre,
Collection des rapports ociels, La documentation francaise (1996). See generally
Nicholas H.D. Foster, Company Law Theory in Comparative Perspective: England and
France, 48 AM. J. COMP. L. 573 (2000).
5. Empirical analysis of the law and

corporate nance
The prior chapters have presented a largely theoretical analysis of why the
laws, foundational, corporate, and securities, is of economic benet.
Chapter 4 looked at their historical development in order to show how their
economic value developed. This chapter undertakes a more rigorous empirical analysis of the economic eects of these laws throughout the world.
The understanding that legal structures may have importance for national
economic outcomes is central to the New Institutional Economics of
Douglass North, as discussed in prior chapters. This understanding about
the general signicance of legal institutions has been conrmed by important empirical cross-country analyses, such as that of Robert Barro, who
found that nations relative devotion to the rule of law was associated with
higher economic growth rates.1
This chapter focuses on the particularized association of foundational,
corporate, and securities laws on nancial development. Some of the
empirical research was addressed in Chapter 2, and this chapter focuses on
the international ndings. We begin by reviewing the now burgeoning
empirical cross-sectional analyses of this association. The existing research
consistently shows a positive economic value for basic foundational law,
corporate law, and securities law. We proceed to conduct our own analyses,
to help measure the robustness of this association between law and the
development of corporate nance.
EXISTING RESEARCH ON THE RELATIONSHIP OF

LAW AND CORPORATE FINANCE
In recent years, economists have devoted considerable attention to studying the economic signicance of legal structures, including capital markets.
Most of this research has involved cross-country analyses, comparing
dierent national legal structures with economic outcome variables. We
begin by reviewing this existing literature.
152
153
La Porta, et al. Studies

The most signicant studies on the economic eect of foundational, corporate, and securities law have been conducted by Rafael La Porta and colleagues at Harvard and elsewhere. The La Porta research has evolved in a
manner that greatly informs the understanding of the relationship of law
and corporate nance. The groups studies touch directly on the particular
aspects of basic, corporate, and securities law that we address in this book.
A key feature of these studies is their creation of independent variables to
measure various types of law. While some of these independent legal variables are rather rudimentary, they represent an important breakthrough for
the empirical study of the eects of the law.
In its earliest stage, the La Porta research considered the economic
signicance of government very generally. In the late 1990s, they focused
on legal origins, comparing common law nations with countries who developed under dierent categories of foundational civil law traditions.2 Their
study found that nations of the common law tradition oered more legal
protections to corporate shareholders and creditors, which in turn meant
that those nations had more minority public shareholdings. Around this
time, they also found that common law nations were signicantly associated with a higher quality of government, as measured by eciency, rights,
and the provision of public goods.3 These studies strongly suggested the
practical importance of a nations basic foundational law, though their
implications were somewhat murky. They left it unclear precisely what features of the common law yielded economic and government benets, as
compared with the civil law. Nevertheless, it seemed clear that something
about legal administration and the courts had a substantial societal eect.
The La Porta group has produced an extensive series of articles about the
importance of the law, but the next signicant article for our purposes analyzed the eect of corporate law protections on capital markets. In 2000,
they explained why legal protections for minority shareholders were critical to corporations abilities to obtain external nance.4 Two years later,
they conducted an empirical cross-country analysis of the eects of legal
shareholder protections.5 This study found that companies in nations with
greater shareholder protections had higher valuations. While it is dicult
to capture the law in variables for quantitative analysis, the authors had
developed both binary variables for specic provisions and a continuous
summary variable.
The authors moved on to the study of securities laws. In another crosscountry analysis, they broke down the components of securities law, coded
national protections for these components, and tested them against measures of nancial development.6 While public enforcement of the securities
154
law and other variables appeared to play at best a modest role in nancial
markets, signicant positive results were associated with mandatory disclosure requirements and with the provision for easier private enforcement
of the securities laws. They found that securities law requirements might be
more signicant for markets than the corporate law protection of investors.
Other Studies
Numerous other authors have studied the eect of various aspects of the
law on capital markets, often using La Portas measures for the legal variables to be analyzed. This category of studies has burgeoned in the last ve
years, both as published articles and working papers, and they have
enhanced our understanding of the role of the law, primarily through crosssectional studies of national laws. This section highlights some of these
studies.
Researchers at the World Bank have done extensive analyses of capital
markets and the eects of legal institutions. Ross Levine, after studying the
importance of capital markets to overall economic growth, examined the
eect of the law on nancial markets and economic growth.7 His analysis
considered legal variables involving the eciency of contract enforcement,
treatment of creditors and accounting standards, including the data from
La Porta, et al. and other sources. Levine found that contract enforcement,
legal creditor protections, and nancial disclosure all contributed to greater
private nancial markets.
With his World Bank colleagues, Levine has also sought to measure the
relative eects of legal systems, politics, and national endowments (such as
geography) for national nancial development.8 To capture the law, they
used the La Porta, et al. standard of national legal origin, as well as their
measure for shareholder rights and property rights protection. The authors
found that the legal variables dominated the alternative explanations for
nancial development. In particular, legal origin was the strongest determinant, even after controlling for the other possible explanations of
nancial development, though there was some association for the political
and endowment variables. Levine has also traced the chain of connections
from original legal origin to greater nancial development and economic
growth.9 Another study found that countries with greater corporate shareholder rights provided higher valuations for banks.10 Other research by this
group has conrmed this nding. For example, they have found that rms
in countries with French legal origin face signicantly higher obstacles in
accessing external nance than rms in common law countries.11
A separate World Bank study tackled the question from a dierent
angle. This study took a nancial organizations measure of the corporate
155
governance quality of individual rms in emerging countries and examined

the eects of the law.12 They found that companies had weaker corporate
governance in countries with less shareholder protection and judicial
eciency. They also found that the quality of corporate governance was
relatively more nancially important in countries with weak legal protections. This nding makes sense, as there would be more variation in governance quality in such nations, and shareholders in these companies do not
have the law as a backstop protection and must rely on strong reputational
signals.
Omar Azfar and others have promoted a theme they call marketmobilized capital, which stresses the importance of free markets but also
recognizes the important ways in which government can augment the
market. A recent study examined the role of corporate law and creditor
protections in augmenting capital markets, using the La Porta, et al. coding
for particular provisions of corporate law and scores for creditor protection.13 They found that the creditor and corporate laws had signicant
eects on national economic growth, operating through the growth of
markets for debt and equity, even after controlling for a measure of law
enforcement. The eect was a substantial one, even for the United States,
in the hundreds of billions of dollars.
Other researchers aliated with other groups have also pursued this
course of study. A study associated with the Italian Centre for Studies in
Economics and Finance examined the eect of legal variables, including
La Porta, et al.s origin of legal system and minority shareholder rights, as
well as measures of judicial eciency and rule of law.14 In a series of tests
of dierent groups of nations and dierent measures for nancial variables,
they found signicant positive eects for the generalized legal variables,
including legal origin and judicial eciency but more ambiguous results for
the legal protection of minority shareholder rights.
Additional research has shown that developing countries with weaker corporate governance protections tend to have thinner equity markets.15 The
combination of corporate law and rule of law variables was associated with
higher levels of market capitalization.16 A number of studies have found that
greater protection of minority shareholders tends to produce more public
minority shareholding, and this in turn tends to yield more investment and
lower cost of capital, with lessened risk.17 As expected, they show that such
protections assure investors and reduce the private benets of controlling a
corporation (whether for opportunism or mere self-protection). Another
clue as to the nature of legal benets is the nding that there is much less rmspecic information absent shareholder rights, which undermines market
eciency.18 A study specic to Poland found that corporate and securities
laws enforced by executive regulators have stimulated rapid development of
156
securities markets.19 Other researchers have specically examined laws

against insider trading and found a positive economic eect, studies which
will be examined in greater detail in Chapter 6.
A recent study examined the eect of laws on rms cost of capital, as
implied in contemporaneous stock price and analyst forecast data, using
dierent valuation models.20 After constructing national cost of capital
using the La Porta, et al. legal variables for rule of law and securities regulation, the authors created a factor analysis measure for the common
dimension of some legal variables. They found that both the quality of a
countrys basic foundational legal system and the securities laws were associated with a lower cost of capital, after using control variables for GDP,
size of securities markets, and voluntary disclosures.
A separate path of research has examined the foundational law and its economic eects. A number of studies have been done on national protection of
property rights and its economic eects, though most of these studies
examine very broad dependent variables such as national economic growth,
rather than nancial markets. One published study did examine multiple
measures of property rights (including survey measures), integrated with
nancial development, and found that higher protection for property was
consistently associated with more ecient allocation of capital.21
The association between legal rules and nancial development has generally survived the introduction of new control variables. For example,
some authors hypothesized that the dierences among nations might truly
be a feature of religious culture. They found that religion was indeed a
signicant determinant of the laws involving creditor rights but that legal
origin was more important than religion in explaining laws protecting
equity holders.22 The studies have employed a number of alternative
control variables, such as ethnolinguistic fractionalization, settler mortality for the legal origin tests, gross domestic product, and other controls.
The cumulation of these studies strongly suggests that law plays a
signicant role in the growth of external nance. They have found that
basic contract laws, creditor protections, corporate laws, and securities laws
all contribute to the success of nancial markets. Not only are the studies
generally consistent, but they have used dierent dependent variables,
dierent control variables, and to a lesser degree, dierent sets of nations,
which lends greater condence to their general ndings. By its nature, such
social scientic research is not totally conclusive, and the studies have some
limitations. For example, they tend to be heavily dependent upon the La
Porta, et al. coding of the law for independent variables. While there is no
particular basis for criticism of the use of this coding, it might be aected
by some other unmeasured variable, and further analyses, using dierent
measures, would be benecial. Moreover, some analyses over time have
157
found little association between the law and nancial measures. These
ndings, though, could simply reect a failure to capture quantitatively the
true inuence of the law, which can be a daunting endeavor.
MEASURING THE EFFECTS OF THE LAW AND

CORPORATE FINANCE
The remainder of this chapter provides some additional empirical analysis
of the association of legal variables and thriving capital markets. We seek
to build upon the existing literature to better inform the nature of this association. The potential breadth of this analysis is enormous, and we do not
purport to deploy any particularly sophisticated empirical methods that go
beyond the sound methods already employed by prior researchers. Rather,
we seek to add some perspective and understanding by employing additional variables. In so doing, we provide a measure for the robustness of the
relationship and information on the manner in which the law inuences
nancial development.
This section addresses some of the complications in measuring the eects
of the law on corporate nance. We discuss how existing research has operationalized the test for these eects, examining both its strengths and weaknesses. While a great degree of valuable research has been conducted, none
of it has fully integrated the basic foundational law, corporate law, and
securities law together in a single model. This research has also depended
heavily on the La Porta, et al. variables, out of necessity, and the studies
have used certain discrete nancial dependent variables, with limited sensitivity testing on this end. Most of the research has also failed to trace the
eects of law through the intermediate steps in the analysis, examining only
the ultimate nancial variables. The following analysis is not uniquely
sophisticated but employs additional measures for the law, additional
dependent nancial variables, and the intermediate penultimate measures
in order to test for the validity and reliability of the associations and help
identify the particular legal rules of greatest importance for equity markets.
Legal Variables
The goal of this research is to analyze the value of the foundational law,
corporate law, and securities law, which requires that they be captured in
quantitative variables for statistical analyses. Unlike nancial data, there
are no readily accessible and accurate quantitative measures for the law.
The law cannot be measured in betterness, and it is dicult to capture
any legal dierences in quantitative terms. One can establish binary scores
158
for the existence or absence of a particular legal rule and even combine
them for a continuous variable, but there is no assurance that this procedure truly measures the law, especially as it functions in courts. Absent
any clear measures for the law, we will deploy a diversity of scales.
To measure the basic law, most existing studies have used legal origin
as a variable, distinguishing between the English common law system and
the various families of civil law. Although this variable has often produced
signicant results, it is theoretically troublesome. First, the variable largely
tracks colonial heritage and might simply measure some other residual
eect of the colonizing nation, rather than the source of law itself. Second,
the signicance of the variable today lacks some plausibility, because the
dierences in the common and civil law systems have been muted over time.
The systems have converged, as common law nations are increasingly governed by statutory prescriptions, while civil law nations adopt common law
principles such as reliance on precedent.23 Perhaps most troubling for this
association is the historic nding that in 1913, before the convergence of the
systems, the common law nations did not have greater nancial development than civil law nations.24 This surely calls into question whether legal
origin is truly the best measure for the foundational law and its eect on the
economy.
There are some alternative measures for the nations foundational legal
systems, but these too are rather crude. There are several groups who have
sought to code national property rights, such as the Heritage Foundation
and Fraser Institute series.25 International investment advisory groups,
such as the Business Economic Research Intelligence and the International
Country Risk Guide, have also given ratings for legal tools such as property rights, contract enforcement, and the rule of law. While helpful, these
sources provide a narrow range of distinctions and typically do not directly
measure legal rights. For example, a Heritage property rights scale incorporates the overall size of government as a component. While the size of
government may be economically relevant, it does not truly measure protection of property from taking. Available measures for contract enforcement are even weaker. An interesting indirect measure of property rights
and contract enforcement is contract-intensive money (CIM). Research
has found this measure is signicantly associated with higher levels of
nancial development.26 This captures the percentage of national currency
placed in contract-dependent investments, such as banks. Though not a
direct measure of the law, it would seem to measure the societal functioning of the legal system.
When measuring corporate law, researchers have relied on the La Porta,
et al. cross-country scaling of national legal content, with generally good
results. The scale is facially valid, and the construction of any alternative
159
measure would be a time-consuming eort. This measure, though,

suers the problems of selective incorporation of legal rules, diculty in
quantifying national embrace of those rules (thus the reliance on
binary measures), and uncertain methodology for combining those rules
into an overall scale. Nevertheless, it may be the best tool reasonably
available.
The only real alternative to the La Porta measures is simple results of
surveys of international businesspersons about the overall requirements
of corporate law. For example, the World Competitiveness Report (WCR)
surveys international managers on a variety of items, legal and otherwise.
Use of such surveys has both advantages and disadvantages. The surveys
directly measure perceptions, rather than realities, but investment decisions are made on perceptions, so this is not such a serious problem. The
survey questions tend to be more general than the La Porta scaling, which
has the disadvantage of vagueness of measurement but the advantage
that the survey may capture aspects of the law not even measured by La
Porta.
For securities laws, the La Porta, et al. measures have also dominated
research, for the same reasons as explain reliance on their corporate law
scaling. The authors securities law measure is somewhat more ne-grained
than their scale for corporate law, but it generally shares the values and limitations of the corporate law scale. Generalized survey data is also available
on securities law. This chapter will use both types of scores in assessing the
signicance of the law for corporate nance. While it would be valuable to
have a separate direct measure of corporate and securities laws to check on
the scale of La Porta, et al., this data is unavailable. We will use dierent
dependent and control variables, though, as a check on the conclusions of
the La Porta group.
As we have observed, nding reliable measures for the law is very
dicult, and any score will surely have specication shortcomings. Even
when it is possible to code for the formal content of the law with some precision, such form does not inevitably translate into the operation of the law.
Such errors are likely to produce an underestimate of the eect of the law,
though. To capture the full eect of legal rules, one needs measures of the
law in operation. The functioning of the law may be captured, to some
degree, by surveys of those using national legal systems. Unfortunately,
such surveys have their own shortcomings and a generalized nding about
the operation of the law doesnt inform policymakers about particular
policy changes that would improve that operation.
Because there is no available perfect variable to capture the eect of the
law on corporate nance, the following analysis uses multiple dierent measures and examines their relative eects and interactions. We will consider the
160
traditionally used La Porta, et al. variables but also employ other measures
for the law, including measures of the functioning of the legal system generally and survey measures about the actual operation of the law. The breadth
of variables will both enable us to assess the robustness of associations and
also may allow us to disaggregate the results and identify particular laws of
importance.
Legal origin is taken as a binary variable, English or civil law. This fails to
capture the nuances of dierent civil law systems set out in La Porta, et al., but
does measure the common law eect. Contract-intensive money is a quantitative nancial variable that is theoretically derivative of the legal system. The
other variables are all perceptual measures, though some are from surveys of
international businesspersons and others are scales created by international
experts. They attempt to measure the rule of law (using three dierent sources),
the protection of property rights, judicial independence, and the relative political risk of property expropriation or failure to enforce contracts.
The variables for corporate law are primarily those of La Porta, et al.
They are binary measures of whether a countrys legal corporations code
contains a particular provision. The one share-one vote variable is a protection of a particular interest of minority shareholders, by preventing the
sale of non-voting stock. The oppressed minority standard simply recognizes some mechanism to protect these rights beyond a fraud action. Voting
by proxy reduces the costs of investor control of the corporation, as does
a rule that shareholders are not required to deposit their shares prior to
shareholders meetings. Cumulative voting better enables minorities to
obtain board representation, and preemptive rights protect against the
dilution of ownership. While La Porta, et al. consider mandatory dividend
laws a form of shareholder protection, this is debatable, as it can constrain
reinvestment and enhancement of corporate market capitalization.
Antidirector rights are a cumulation of the individual binary variables
other than the mandatory dividend requirement. The nal corporate law
variable that we employ is a generalized perceptual survey measure from
the World Competitiveness Report that measures the eectiveness with
which the nation denes and protects the rights of shareholders.
For securities law, La Porta, et al. also provide measures. These variables
are not simple binary ones but scaled based on a number of criteria. For
example, the measure for the disclosure requirements of a nations securities law is based on a prospectus requirement, requirements regarding disclosure of ocer compensation, equity ownership structure, insider
ownership, material contracts, and transactions with insiders. Most of the
securities law variables are procedural ones, though. The burden of proof
variable measures the diculties in recovering under the laws. Private
enforcement incorporates the disclosure and burden of proof variables.
161
Other variables measure governmental enforcement in authorization of

criminal liability and enforcement orders. The cumulative public enforcement variable encompasses these scores plus measures for the characteristics of the public supervisor of securities markets and the supervisors
investigatory powers. In addition to these La Porta, et al. variables, we use
a general World Competitiveness Report survey response to a question
about the stringency of a nations nancial regulations. The following legal
variables are used in our analysis.
Legal variables
Basic foundational variables
Legal origin (La Porta) (origin)
Rule of law (La Porta) (rol)
Risk of expropriation (La Porta) (riskexp)
Risk of contract repudiation (La Porta) (riskcon)
Judicial eciency (La Porta) (jude)
WB rule of law (World Bank) (wbrol)
ICRG rule of law (ICRG) (icrgrol)
Property rights (Fraser) (prop)
Judicial independence (WCR) (judindep)
Contract-intensive money (IRIS) (cim)
Corporate law variables
One share-one vote (La Porta) (osov)
Oppressed minority rights (La Porta) (oppm)
Proxy by mail allowed (La Porta) (pbm)
Shares not blocked before meeting (La Porta) (snbbm)
Cumulative voting (La Porta) (cumv)
Preemptive rights (La Porta) (preem)
Mandatory dividend (La Porta) (mand)
Anti-director rights (La Porta) (adr)
Shareholder rights (WCR) (shr)
Securities law variables
Disclosure requirements (La Porta) (disc)
Burden of Proof (La Porta) (bofp)
Private enforcement (La Porta) (priv)
Public enforcement (La Porta) (pub)
Enforcement orders (La Porta) (enfo)
Criminal liability (La Porta) (crim)
Financial regulation stringency (WCR) (nr)
162
Financial Variables
The nancial dependent variables of interest must also be determined. The
data on such nancial variables is much more available and more precise.
For example, nancial data on the size and trading in nancial markets is
regularly and reliably reported. There remains a question about which of
these nancial variables to use as a test for the eect of the law. Many
dierent variables have been employed, including stock market value to
GDP ratio, volatility ratings, capitalization to sales ratio, and others. Each
of these measures has a legitimate claim of importance. Because there is no
single variable of concern, we employ a number of dierent dependent
nancial variables from various sources.
The relatively new World Bank database adds new valuable information
on the status of the worlds nancial markets.27 We use several variables
from the dierent categories of the database. The ratio variables of bank
and nancial institution credit and liquid liabilities to GDP measure
the overall role of nancial institutions in the economy. They include
both banking and equity markets. The overhead costs and net interest
margin variables provide measures of the eciency by which nancial
intermediaries such as banks can channel funds to investors and are
primarily measures of the eciency of the banking system. The remaining variables of stock market capitalization, value traded, and turnover
are measures specic to the national equity markets and their relative
liquidity.
In addition to variables from the World Bank database, we use two central
variables from La Porta, et al. on overall market capitalization, two purely
perceptual measures of capital markets taken from surveys of businesspersons, and two more quantitative variables drawn from research by Laura
Beny.28 The rst two La Porta variables are similar to those of the World
Bank, as measurements of nancial market capitalization relative to
total sales and cash ow. The third of these variables, the ratio of
Worldscope database rms to domestic rms, is meant to capture the
degree of public shareholding in the market. The cost of capital and
adequacy of stock market capital variables are survey measures. While
they have the shortcomings of any perceptual survey measures, they have
the corresponding advantage of measuring business perceptions and potentially controlling for nation-specic factors such as the need for capital. The
nal variables, from Beny, are cash ow to price ratio, measuring the sum of
earnings and depreciation over the companys market value of common
equity.
163
Financial variables
Market capitalization/sales (La Porta) (mcap/s)
Market capitalization/cash (La Porta) (mcap/c)
WLD domestic rms (La Porta) (wldomes)
Liquid liabilities/GDP (World Bank) (ll/gdp)
Bank and nancial institution credit/GDP (World Bank) (bvic/gdp)
Overhead costs (World Bank) (ohc)
Net interest margin (World Bank) (nim)
Stock market capitalization/GDP (World Bank) (mcap/gdp)
Stock market value traded/GDP (World Bank) (smv/gdp)
Stock market turnover/GDP (World Bank) (smt/gdp)
Cost of capital (WCR) (coc)
Adequacy of stock market provision of capital (WCR) (adeqcap)
Cash ow/price ratio (Beny) (cash/price)
Market volatility (Beny) (mvol)
Intermediate Variables
One further general set of variables is analyzed in this chapter the intermediate variables. The hypothesized eect of the law on markets operates
indirectly. Corporate laws, for example, are intended to overcome agency
problems, and securities laws are, inter alia, intended to enhance the frequency and reliability of corporate disclosures. These eects on the relative
magnitude of agency problems and relative amount of disclosure then theoretically translate into a larger or more eciently functioning capital
market. When studies nd that the law translates into thriving capital
markets, they have not tested the intermediate variables to determine that
the eect is as hypothesized. By examining certain intermediate variables,
we can better check for the possible spuriousness of the relationship and
better understand the precise nature of the eects of the law.
Unfortunately, data on the intermediate variables is only rough, like measures of the legal variables. The best source for quantitative measurement
of the intermediate variables is international surveys of businesspersons,
like that of the WCR discussed above in the context of the legal variables.
These surveys measure answers to questions such as the degree to which
managers eectively maximize shareholder value or prevent improper practices. For some other variables of interest, there are also expert rating scales,
such as accounting standards or eective corporate governance. Once
again, absent any unambiguously optimal intermediate variable measure,
we use a number of dierent ones.
These intermediate variables are meant to capture the processes through
164
which the legal variables inuence nancial outcomes. There are two distinct
types of processes at issue. The rst is a measure of the quality and honesty of
management in the presence of the agency problem. While this is the ultimate
measure of concern, its measurement is inevitably amorphous and of uncertain reliability. The category can only be measured through survey variables.
The second somewhat more reliable variable is a measure of disclosure. For the
disclosure variables, the Centre for International Financial Analysis Research
(CIFAR) provides several relevant measures.29 These include nancial disclosure intensity, corporate governance disclosure intensity, aggregate disclosure,
and the timeliness of nancial reporting. La Porta, et al. supply a national
rating of accounting standards. These variables can help capture the
eectiveness of corporate disclosure among the nations of the study.
Intermediate variables
Board prevention of improper practices (WCR) (bpip)
Board management of shareholder value (WCR) (bmsv)
Corporate ethics (WCR) (ethic)
Accounting standards (La Porta) (accst)
Financial disclosure (CIFAR) (nd)
Governance disclosure (CIFAR) (govd)
Aggregate disclosure (CIFAR) (aggd)
Timeliness of disclosure (CIFAR) (timed)
Governance opacity (PriceWaterhouseCoopers) (govo)
Governance quality (McKinsey) (govq)
The legal, intermediate, and ultimate nancial variables in these lists may
not perfectly capture the eect of the law on corporate nance. They rely
on perceptions and are undoubtedly inuenced by various extralegal
national considerations. However, they have the benet of being direct
measures of the behavior that the law is meant to inuence, and there is
good evidence that companies who score higher in these governance and
disclosure rankings are valued higher in the stock market.30 Corporate law
is intended in large part to resolve agency problems and its benets should
appear in governance quality and the maximization of shareholder value.
Securities law is intended in large part to ensure that corporate disclosures
are comprehensive, timely, and accurate. Hence, one would expect the laws
eect to appear in measures such as the intermediate variables.
Methodological Questions
Even if the independent legal variables could be perfectly measured, there
would still be questions about how to test for their eects. A great number
165
of dierent scales are available for measuring the nancial markets, with no
single scale conclusively preferable. Other questions include the directionality of the association (for example, might nancial development inuence
the nature of the law) and the appropriate external control variables that
should be incorporated in measurement. The very nature of cross-country
comparisons runs the risk of producing spurious associations. Such comparisons also present a signicant risk of false ndings of no signicant
association, simply because of the great stochastic noise associated with
comparing dierent national markets.
A very important question, often unanswered in the research, is the
means by which the legal variables operate. For example, some research has
found that statutory disclosure requirements are associated with greater
investment in equity markets. While it seems logical that they do so by providing greater actual disclosures or reliability of disclosures to investors,
this eect has gone largely untested. The failure to measure such intermediate variables leaves the logical assumption uncertain and raises a concern
that some unmeasured third variable, perhaps unrelated to the law, might
explain the conclusions. Testing for the intermediate variables better
enables us to assess the role of the law in corporate nance.
The choice of control variables is another dicult question for this
research. The outcomes might be explained by some extralegal factor that
happens to be collinear with our legal variables. As noted above, the existing studies have employed various dierent control variables, which provides some assurance about the validity of the identied associations but
leaves open the possibility that some unmeasured factor explains the
results. This is especially a concern for reliance on legal origin as a measure,
because it is highly collinear with the culture of the former colonial power.
The failure to test for intermediate variables complicates this concern. Of
course, the failure to fully capture other variables of inuence could also
obscure a true relationship and mean that the eect of the law on nancial
development is understated by this research.
Once again, we have no easy solution to these methodological problems,
which must inevitably complicate cross-country analyses of the type typically employed. Since the problem cannot be precisely cured, we employ
numerous dierent variables, independent, intermediate, and ultimate. This
does not answer all the methodological concerns but can provide some
degree of greater assurance about the validity of results and can expose alternative explanations for those results. With more variables and more separate
tests, there is obviously some risk of spurious results, by random chance. The
randomness eect can be ruled out, though, if the statistically signicant
associations are relatively frequent, and if they consistently operate in one
direction, we can be condent in the nature of the association. Random
166
eects are just as likely to show a negative eect for the law as a positive
one.
Not only will we use a large number of variables, we will run a large
number of correlations and regression analyses. We do not follow a precise
path, testing particularized hypotheses, but instead cast a wide net to nd
signicant associations. We have a generalized theory; that legal rules
including restrictive legal rules can serve to strengthen nancial markets in
various ways. They can reduce investment risk, particularly risks that
cannot be eectively cured through diversication, and facilitate ecient
trading markets by reducing the transaction costs associated with investing. Our null hypothesis is that the laws do not have this eect, so that measures of statistical signicance can be used to reject that null hypothesis.
Before reporting results, some additional explanation is required. For
simple space reasons, reporting of the results will be brief. The number of
observations in the regressions is generally around 50, and we will note
when this is not the case. We will also explain when the R2 term is
signicantly large or small. When reading the results of these studies, it is
important to keep in mind that the scales are not normalized. The independent variable scales run the gamut from binary to quite precise (out to
three decimal places). Hence, one cannot simply seize on the signicant
variable with the largest correlation coecient as the most substantively
important determinant. The important results are the existence of statistically signicant relationships and the strength of those relationships, as can
be measured by a R2 term. With these background principles and caveats
in mind, we now turn to statistical analysis.
SIMPLE ANALYSIS OF BASIC FOUNDATIONAL LAW

ASSOCIATIONS
The empirical analysis of this chapter begins with simple, one variable
regressions of the legal measures against the ultimate nancial variables of
concern. Given the very large numbers of variables in the analysis and enormous numbers of permutations of independent variables, we start by
looking for some basic associations. While this study includes no intersecting relationships or control variables, that mere fact has some value. The
law is constitutive of much in society and is likewise somewhat endogenous
to societal preferences, and legal variables surely have a cybernetic association with one another and with potential independent control variables.
To the extent that additional variables are endogenous of the law (or vice
versa), they will not be truly independent checks on the eects of the law.
Hence a simple regression is of some value.
167
We begin the simple regression with a consideration of the basic foundational legal variables. Because the basic law and its enforcement governs
and theoretically facilitates all business transactions, one might expect that
the recognition and enforcement of property rights and contracts would
associate with richer nancial markets. Similarly, one would expect that the
actual operation of the rule of law, with consideration for judicial eciency
and judicial independence, might also yield stronger nancial markets,
because they presumably mean that the law on the books is better translated into practice. And regardless of the substantive content of the law on
the books, the rule of law should provide economic benets by creating
some stability and avoiding costs associated with corruption.
The rst analysis involves the correlation among the basic foundational
legal variables themselves. Dierent studies have used dierent combinations of these variables, but collinearity between the scaling of the variables
may obscure the truly signicant determinants. Intercorrelations among
the variables should be identied as a threshold matter. Bivariate Pearson
correlations were taken for the paired foundational legal variables, and
Table 5.1 reports their statistical signicance. Those positive correlations
signicant at 0.01 are marked with , those signicant at 0.05 were
marked with , and insignicant associations were marked with . In this
analysis, none of the correlations were signicant in a negative direction.
Plainly there is a high intercorrelation among the foundational legal variables, with most signicant at the 0.01 level. The procedural legal variables
(such as judicial independence, judicial eciency, and rule of law) not only
signicantly correlate with one another, they also signicantly correlate with
the more substantive legal variables (such as property rights and enforcement
of contracts). The one foundational legal variable that is not signicantly
associated with the others is English origin, which, ironically, is the variable
Table 5.1
Associations among legal foundational variables

origin riskprop riskcon prop cim rol wbrol icrgrol jude judindep
origin
riskprop
riskcon
prop
cim
rol
wbrol
icrgrol
jude
judindep

168
Table 5.2
origin
riskprop
riskcon
prop
cim
rol
wbrol
icrgrol
jude
judindep
Legal foundational variables and World Bank nancial variables

ll/gdp
bvic/gdp
ohc
nim
mcap/gdp
smv/gdp
smt/gdp

that has been most widely used in the cross-country studies of the eect of
the law. This gives some reason to question whether legal origin best captures
the role of the foundational law but also gives some condence that its
signicance can indeed be isolated from other measures of the law, so that
the true practical importance of legal origin can be assessed.
The next analysis continues the simple regressions of the foundational
basic legal variables but introduces nancial measures as independent variables. Each of the foundational legal variables is regressed as an independent variable against the World Banks measures for nancial markets as
dependent variables. These variables are all traditional quantitative measures of nancial markets. Again, statistically signicant bivariate correlations are reported with or . For each result, a better performance
(that is, lower overhead costs) merits a .
The table demonstrates a consistent and strong statistical association
between most of the basic foundational legal variables and sundry measures
of nancial markets. The associations were highly signicant and consistently positive in direction. The only independent legal variable lacking in
consistent positive signicance was English legal origin. None of the variables explained the relative degree of stock market turnover, though. Both
the substantive legal measures and the purely procedural assessments of the
legal system showed a signicant association with larger and more ecient
nancial markets, as measured by the World Bank variables. This nding is
especially signicant, because the foundational law would also be expected
to aect the overall GDP, which is the denominator in many of these ratios.
It appears the law has a positive eect on nancial markets that surpasses
its general economic value to GDP. The next analysis considers the eect of
the same basic foundational variables on other non-World Bank nancial
variables from a variety of sources, reported in Table 5.3. These sources
Table 5.3
origin
riskprop
riskcon
prop
cim
rol
wbrol
icrgrol
jude
judindep
169
Legal foundational variables and other nancial variables

mcap/s
mcap/c
wldomes
coc
adeqcap
cash/price
mvol

include both the La Porta, et al. measures and international business survey
responses on the cost of capital and adequacy of national capital markets.
The eect of the basic foundational legal variables on these measures is
not as strong as was the case with the World Bank variables, but the results
are typically positive and relatively consistent in their pattern. The vast
majority of the variables had a strong positive association with perceptions
of lower cost of capital and adequate supply of capital, with lessened
market volatility and with the increased proportion of Worldscope rms to
domestic rms. None of the variables were signicantly associated with the
measures of market capitalization to sales or cash ow or cash ow to price.
The latter absence of an association is rendered much less troubling,
though, by the consistent signicant positive associations of these variables
with the quantitative World Bank measures of markets in Table 5.2. While
the reason for the lack of association in this table is not perfectly clear, it
might be that the foundational variables are aecting both the numerator
and the denominator in the same positive direction and similar amount, so
that they do not show up as a signicant determinant of the ratio.
Because these are simple regressions, and because the independent legal
variables are highly intercorrelated, one should be cautious about drawing
any signicant conclusions at this point. A signicant association with one
legal variable might be attributable to another collinear legal variable or to
some yet unmeasured third factor. In addition, the absence of an association of the basic foundational law with some measures of nancial markets
leaves some doubt about the nature of the positive eect from this law.
On balance, though, the evidence on the nancial value of the basic foundational law is strong. None show any signicant negative association, and
all but legal origin and contract-intensive money have a pattern of highly
signicant positive associations for a majority of the nancial variables of
170
interest. For these variables, we reach some preliminary tentative conclusions. First, we nd that legal origin is not a fruitful test for legal systems
eect on nancial markets, at least given the available alternative measures.
Second, we nd that both the substantive and procedural basic foundational legal rules strengthen national nancial markets, though the high
association between procedural protection and substantive protection
leaves the independent importance of each in some doubt.
SIMPLE ANALYSIS OF CORPORATE LAW

ASSOCIATIONS
Having assessed the association of some basic legal variables with nancial
markets, we turn to simple regressions of the corporate law measures on
these same nancial variables. The independent variables for corporate law
are more limited and highly dependent upon the coding eort of La Porta,
et al. They code for particular features of a nations corporate law and also
provide a cumulative score for antidirector rights generally. Previous
research has demonstrated that the intercorrelation among the individual
corporate law measures is not high. We supplement this with the survey
measure of generalized legal shareholder rights taken from the World
Competitiveness Report.
As in the prior section, we begin with simple regressions of our corporate law variables against various quantitative measures of national
nancial markets taken from the World Bank database. Some of the World
Bank measures (such as ohc and nim) are banking measures. While banks
have their corporate governance issues, one would not expect as great an
association between the corporate law independent variables and these
measures, and the theoretical association with ll/bdp and bvic/gdp is somewhat attenuated. One would particularly expect an association to show up
in the nal three variables that measure equity markets. Table 5.4 reports
the associations. Once again, we designate statistically signicant associations with a or , depending upon the level of signicance.
The associations for corporate law variables with World Bank nancial
variables are much weaker than those for our basic foundational legal variables. Nevertheless, there is some clear evidence of a positive association for
corporate law, especially for the cumulative measure of antidirector rights,
which is signicant for the three variables for which an association is
hypothesized but not for the two variables for which an association seemed
less likely. The survey measure of shareholder rights also showed some
meaningful positive associations with strong nancial markets. In addition,
a few more of the individual corporate law variables would have shown a
Table 5.4
171
Corporate law variables and World Bank nancial variables

ll/gdp
bvic/gdp
ohc
nim
mcap/gdp
smv/gdp
smt/gdp
osov
oppm
pbm
snbbm
cumv
preem
mand
adr
shr

Table 5.5
Corporate law variables and other nancial variables
osov
oppm
pbm
snbbm
cumv
preem
mand
adr
shr
mcap/s
mcap/c
wldomes
coc
adeqcap
cash/price
mvol

positive association at a less rigorous (0.10) standard of statistical

signicance. In the absence of any signicant negative correlations, there is
reason to believe that corporate law aimed at agency problems has a
positive eect on nancial markets. To examine this relationship further,
Table 5.5 reports the results of bivariate correlations between the corporate
law variables and the other nancial variables.
The corporate law variables appear to have a positive eect on these measures of nancial markets, if a variable one. Some intermittently strong
associations appear in the table, with no signicant negative associations.
We see a signicant correlation between some corporate law variables and
the ratios of market capitalization to sales and cash ow, which was missing
from the analysis of the basic foundational legal variables, suggesting an
additional eect for corporate law on these nancial measures.
These results enable some preliminary conclusions. As one might logically
expect, dierent aspects of corporate law have an eect on dierent nancial
172
variables. Consequently, a cumulative index, such as the antidirector rights

measure, might obscure some of the eects of corporate law, by muting the
dierentiation in the aspect of corporate law that matters for a particular
nancial measure. When one combines all the nancial dependent variables,
however, the cumulative measures for antidirector rights and protection of
dened shareholder rights show somewhat more power than does any single
individual independent corporate law variable. This feature illustrates the
complexity of measuring the eects of the laws.
There is evidence of the nancial value of corporate law in these preliminary correlations. Its overall economic eect is not so great as that of the
basic foundational law, which would be expected. Corporate law builds
upon and elaborates on the basic foundational law and cannot be as
eective where that foundation is missing.
SIMPLE ANALYSIS OF SECURITIES LAW

ASSOCIATIONS
The nal set of legal regulations to be analyzed are those of securities law.
Our analysis of securities laws parallels the preceding analysis of basic
foundational laws and corporate law. Again, we are highly dependent on
the coding eorts of La Porta, et al. for our independent measures of securities law. We supplement these measures with a survey from the World
Competitiveness Report assessing the overall stringency of national regulation of securities law. Table 5.6 reports the results of our simple bivariate
correlations, using the same approach as for basic foundational law and
corporate law variables.
The results reect an extremely strong eect for some of the independent
securities law variables on the World Bank nancial variables. Disclosure
requirements and private enforcement authority show very strong associations. This essentially conrms the results of La Porta, et al. with an entirely
Table 5.6
disc
bofp
priv
pub
enfo
crim
nr
Securities law variables and World Bank nancial variables
ll/gdp
bvic/gdp
ohc
nim
mcap/gdp
smv/gdp
smt/gdp

173
dierent set of dependent nancial variables, giving greater credibility to

the ndings. They also found that disclosure requirements and private
enforcement were the key determinants of securities law. The variables for
public enforcement, though, show no signicant associations with the
World Bank variables, demonstrating the importance of private securities
law enforcement. While it would be premature to dismiss all importance of
public enforcement, it seems clear that private enforcement is the more critical attribute of securities law. The cumulative variable of perceived stringency of nancial regulation also shows a very strong association for many
of the World Bank nancial variables. The signicant associations for net
interest margin and overhead costs are somewhat surprising, however, and
suggest that possibly some other factor, such as basic foundational law,
might be the determinant of these results.
As in the preceding discussions, we turn next to measure in simple bivariate correlations the securities law variables against nancial dependent
variables other than those of the World Bank database. Table 5.7 reports
the results in the same format as the prior tables.
Many positive associations in these results help conrm the economic
value of the securities laws. The variables of disclosure, burden of proof, and
private enforcement are associated with many measures of market development, and the public regulation and enforcement variables show some eect
on these dependent variables as well. The preliminary analysis at this point
suggests that the securities laws increase market valuation as compared with
GDP, sales, or cash ow, they allow investors to better capture the cash ow
as capital value, they help ensure that the cost of capital is low and adequate
capital is supplied, and they may reduce market volatility. These simple
regression results conrm the La Porta, et al. ndings, with dierent sets of
dependent variables. The results support the ndings that private monitoring is especially valuable but provide some additional support for public
regulatory enforcement that the previous research did not nd.
Table 5.7
disc
bofp
priv
pub
enfo
crim
nr
Securities law variables and other nancial variables
mcap/s
mcap/c
wldomes
coc
adeqcap
cash/price
mvol

174
The simple correlations between legal protections and strong nancial

markets are strongly suggestive but leave many uncertainties. It is unclear
if each of these laws has an independent eect on the markets or if
collinearities among the variables are producing spurious results for some
variables. Potentially, an omitted variable may explain the results that
appear associated with certain legal requirements. The rest of the chapter
elaborates the analysis to get closer to understanding the true eects of the
law and of particular legal requirements.
ANALYZING THE LEGAL VARIABLES

To proceed further with our analysis of the eects of the law on corporate
nance, the eects of the basic foundational legal variables need to be
better understood. Virtually all of these variables were signicantly correlated with positive economic consequences. Yet these variables are highly
intercorrelated, so the eect of one particular variable is dicult to discern
with condence. In addition, it is important to reduce the number of variables to be used for purposes of multiple regressions that integrate the basic
foundational variables with others.
Theoretically, the relative eect of particular variables might be discerned from multiple regression analyses of all the basic foundational legal
variables on our dependent nancial variables of interest. Unfortunately,
the high degree of multicollinearity obscures this process. For example, six
of the eight variables were associated with the wldomes variable in the
simple regression, but in a multiple regression none of the variables had statistical signicance. The same was true for the cash/price variable. For the
coc variable, only the World Bank rule of law variable was signicant at the
0.05 level. For adeqcap, none of the variables had statistical signicance in
the multiple regression. These ndings indicate that virtually all of the positive nancial results of these variables derive from their common variance,
so that the specic variance unique to each particular variable is not a
signicant determinant of our measures of nancial outcomes. The positive results come primarily from something that is common to all of our
basic foundational variables.
One approach for dealing with this multicollinearity problem is factor
analysis. This is a statistical technique designed to identify the variables
with the greatest common variance among a set of collinear variables and
extract some common dimension from the many variables, enabling a
reduction of their number. One obvious possible mutual dimension would
be English legal origin, but this seems unlikely, because it had the lowest
intercorrelation of the basic foundational legal variables. Absent a clear
175
theory about the common dimension of these variables, our factor analysis is essentially exploratory.
The descriptive intercorrelation matrix among the basic foundational
legal variables has already been presented in Table 5.1. The next step is to
identify the communality which measures the proportion of the variance
in the particular legal factor that can be explained by the common factors.
All initial communalities are one, and Table 5.8 reports the extraction communalities of the factor analysis for the basic foundational legal variables.
From this table, we can see that the common dimension appears to be
closely related to our measures of rule of law. This might be expected, as
rule of law is not an input into the legal system but instead a measure of
its general eectiveness. Of the other variables, only contract-intensive
money is relatively unrelated to the common dimension. While use of one
of the rule of law variables might successfully capture the commonality of
all the basic foundational legal variables, the factor analysis procedure
enables the creation of a separate factor variable or variables that better
capture the common dimension.
There are a variety of ways in which to develop this variable, and we
employ principal component analysis, though the results are extremely
similar under principal factor analysis. For results, the analysis gives
eigenvalues, which measure the dispersion of data points around a given
access and try to determine the pattern of least dispersion. The factor
analysis yields one component with an eigenvalue of 6.683, explaining over
66 percent of the common variance, as opposed to other components. The
second-best component has an eigenvalue of only 1.173, which is not materially dierent from the third component at 0.859. Examination of the
associated scree plot shows that the elbow of the curve occurs at the
second component, so we use only the initial clearly superior factor in our
Table 5.8
origin
riskprop
riskcon
prop
cim
rol
wbrol
icrgrol
jude
judindep
Factor analysis communalities

initial
extraction
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.831
0.909
0.875
0.748
0.321
0.923
0.867
0.923
0.692
0.766
176
analyses. This yields a factor variable that tries to capture the common
dimension of the basic legal foundational variables. The factor variable
captures both the substantive and procedural aspects of the foundational
law and serves as a good measure for the overall eect of this law.
For a corporate law variable, the statistically signicant results were
somewhat spotty and concentrated around the variables of protection
against oppression of minority shareholders, the cumulative La Porta, et
al. index of antidirector rights, and the survey variable of dened and protected shareholder rights. The antidirector rights measure includes the
oppressed minority scale, so our initial reduction of independent variables
will be the La Porta, et al. scale of antidirector rights (adr) as a proxy for
the strength of corporate law.
For securities law, the basic regressions showed more consistent positive
statistical signicance, but most of the associations came from disclosure
requirements, the burden of proof in enforcement actions, private enforcement, and the survey variable of stringency of nancial regulation, though
there were some important associations with public enforcement. The
measure for private enforcement combines the scores for disclosure and
burden of proof, so use of those variables becomes unnecessary. The initially reduced independent variables used for securities law are private
enforcement (priv) as a proxy for the strength of securities law. Signicantly
neither adr nor priv is closely correlated with the factor score measure for
basic foundational law. The data reduction gives us one variable as a proxy
for each of the three main families of law.
We considered using the survey variables of shr and nr as measures of the
strength of corporate and securities law in practice. Clearly, the measures for
adr and priv capture only a portion of the eect of corporate and securities
law, by their own formulae. The survey measures might better capture the
entirety of a nations corporate and securities law. However, both shr and nr
are signicantly correlated, at the 0.01 level, with our factor variable for basic
law. Thus, it appears possible that the executives responding to the survey
asking about the protection of shareholder rights and stringency of nancial
regulation were implicitly factoring in the eect of the basic law in their estimates. Consequently, these variables hold little promise for our next
endeavor identifying the discrete eects of the dierent categories of law.
SEPARATING THE FINANCIAL EFFECTS OF LEGAL

VARIABLES
Now that we have a manageable set of legal variables, with a proxy for the
basic foundational law (factor), corporate law (adr), and securities law
177
(priv), it is possible to try to separate their unique eects on nancial

market development. We can examine whether the basic foundational law
is all that is required or whether securities law might be counterproductive,
given a nations functioning basic and corporate law. The rst step is a multiple regression that uses these three legal values as independent variables.
The dependent variables are seven of the nancial variables used above,
with a focus on measures for equity markets and attention diversication
among the World Bank nancial measures (mcap/gdp and smv/gdp), the
La Porta, et al. nancial measures (mcap/s), the WCR survey measures (coc
and adeqcap) and other nancial measures (cash/price and mvol). In
Table 5.9, we report the results with correlation coecient and statistical
signicance level in parentheses. As our analysis becomes more rened, we
also report the R2 level and the number of countries in the analysis. In the
following tables, we boldface all correlations signicant at the 0.10 level.
Bear in mind that for the nal two measures, a negative sign is preferable
(lower ratio of cash ow to share price and lower market volatility).
Each of the full equations was statistically signicant at the 0.01 level,
and the R2 levels are relatively high for such cross-country analyses, which
inevitably have a high degree of random noise. The nancial variables,
coming from dierent sources and slightly dierent samples, give some
condence in the robustness of the consistent results.
The results in Table 5.9 are not entirely consistent and do not tell a perfectly clear story. In general, the factor measure for basic foundational law
is statistically signicant and shows a typically positive eect, though it is
signicant and negative for the La Porta, et al. measure of mcap/s, a quite
curious outcome. The corporate law measure of adr, by contrast is typically
insignicant and frequently shows a negative sign, except for mcap/s. The
securities law measure of priv, by contrast, shows the expected positive sign
for the variables generally and demonstrates statistical signicance for a
majority of the independent nancial variables.
Table 5.9
Regression of groups of legal variables on stock markets
mcap/gdp
factor
adr
priv
R2
n
0.453
(0.002)
0.066
(0.698)
0.380
(0.034)
0.409
38
smv/gdp
0.394
(0.009)
0.028
(0.875)
0.357
(0.056)
0.348
38
mcap/s
coc
adeqcap
0.352
0.842
0.663
(0.018) (0.000) (0.000)
0.409 0.107 0.094
(0.026) (0.349) (0.521)
0.234
0.163
0.325
(0.185) (0.161) (0.032)
0.419
0.754
0.577
33
34
35
cash/price
mvol
0.237 0.592
(0.193) (0.000)
0.168
0.086
(0.482) (0.603)
0.560
0.236
(0.021) (0.159)
0.434
0.431
24
37
178
Before drawing our preliminary conclusions, it is important to introduce

a caveat on statistical signicance, which should not be worshipped as a standard for validity. Every single securities law measure was signicant at the 0.2
level or better, which means that there is a better than 80 percent probability
that there exists an authentic relationship between priv and the dependent
variable of interest. Moreover, every full equation was signicant at the 0.01
level, so one should not place undue emphasis on the statistical signicance
for each individual independent variable in each individual equation.
At this point, the data suggest that there is a strong positive relationship
between the factor variable for basic foundational law and equity market
development and eciency, save for the single anomalous signicant negative association. There is a comparably strong positive relationship between
securities law and equity markets, with more consistency than even that of
basic foundational law. The evidence for the positive value of the antidirector rights measure of corporate law, though, is quite frail. The only positive association of any strength was with mcap/s, a regression that seems a
little dubious given the signicant negative association with the factor variable for basic foundational law.
Table 5.9 above included no control variables. Given the multitude of
dierences among the nations and their potential eects on securities
markets, consideration of some third factor control variables is necessary.
The choice of appropriate control variables, though, is a dicult one. For
example, GDP is a commonly used control variable in many cross-country
analyses but would be inappropriate here. Ample empirical research
demonstrates that GDP is signicantly aected by our independent variable of basic foundational law and signicantly aected by the dependent
nancial market variables as well. With this high level of endogeneity, GDP
is not helpful as a control variable, although it has sometimes been used.
Another potential control variable, the degree of corruption in the nation,
suers the same problem of endogeneity to the law.
Because the very nature of the law, especially the basic foundational law,
aects all of society, endogeneity is pervasive and some studies have used
relatively few or no control variables. Some of the control variables that
have been used are inapplicable to our research. For example, settler mortality has been used as a control variable when studies have sought to
measure the signicance of a nations legal origin, but the origin variable
has not been an important one in our analyses.
Given the relatively limited size of the sample, the number of control
variables should be limited as well. One good control variable is ethnolinguistic fractionalization (ethn), which measures the ethnic and linguistic heterogeneity of a nations people.31 This variable is largely exogenous
of the legal and nancial variables, yet has a plausible eect on the study;
179
as noted in Chapter 2, greater ethnic homogeneity tends to yield greater

trust, which may yield greater investment in equity markets. Another variable that could have an important economic eect on markets is education, or human capital. Such human capital is commonly used in
cross-country analyses and produces positive economic outcomes for a
nation. Human capital is commonly operationalized as the percentage of
the eligible populace enrolled in secondary education (secon).32 For both
these variables, data is available for the relevant nations. Table 5.10 reports
the same multiple regressions as those of the prior table, but with these
two control variables added to the equations. Once again, each of the full
equations was statistically signicant at the 0.01 level, and the R2 levels
are good.
The introduction of control variables do not dramatically alter our
results though they tend to reduce the associations with the legal variables.
The statistical signicance of our legal variables in some equations slips
somewhat, typically from the 0.05 level to the 0.10 level. The latter ndings
are still salient ones, because of the statistical noise associated with crosscountry comparisons and the high signicance of the full model. The introduction of the control variables does not substantially alter or change the
directionality of any of the coecients or patterns of results for the legal
variables, and these variables have a very modest eect on the resulting R2
measures. The control variables were generally not signicant (or even close
to signicant) independently.
While there was strong theoretical reason to believe that these control variables would be signicant determinants of our nancial variables, they
Table 5.10 Regression of groups of legal variables and control variables on
stock markets
mcap/gdp smv/gdp
factor
adr
priv
ethn
secon
R2
n
0.450
(0.053)
0.053
(0.762)
0.341
(0.069)
0.133
(0.436)
0.096
(0.693)
0.420
38
0.423
(0.084)
0.021
(0.911)
0.334
(0.091)
0.086
(0.634)
0.023
(0.928)
0.353
38
mcap/s
coc
adeqcap
0.202
0.700
0.528
(0.351) (0.000) (0.006)
0.363 0.087 0.080
(0.050) (0.446) (0.593)
0.323
0.136
0.301
(0.089) (0.252) (0.057)
0.216 0.002
0.016
(0.233) (0.985) (0.914)
0.311
0.199
0.194
(0.208) (0.173) (0.335)
0.460
0.773
0.592
33
34
35
cash/price mvol
0.773 0.681
(0.449) (0.501)
0.179
0.032
(0.475) (0.827)
0.564
0.113
(0.031) (0.459)
0.084 0.201
(0.671) (0.168)
0.778 0.720
(0.440) (0.002)
0.452
0.586
24
37
180
proved signicant in only one of the 14 possible instances. This illustrates the
great statistical noise associated with any cross-country comparisons and the
diculty in nding signicant associations at the more rigorous levels of statistical signicance. It is noteworthy that securities law (priv) was a relatively
more important determinant of nancial outcomes than was secondary education, in ve of the seven equations. Securities law was signicant at the
relaxed 0.10 level for ve of the nancial dependent variables (more than
even for the basic foundational law). This nding of the relative importance
of securities law is consistent with the results of a study of transition
economies, which found that of dierent indexes for shareholder protection,
the securities regulation scale was the only one to show signicance.33
The association for securities law, and only securities law, on the
cash/price variable is important. The prior studies showing that the basic
foundational law increased the valuation of rms and equity markets may
be due to the eect of legal systems on cash ow. For example, the greater
valuation could be due to reduced risk of expropriation or greater opportunities for sales. This eect is independent of that of the risk premium
demanded by investors, to account for agency problems. Our results for this
variable suggest that the latter concern is directly addressed by securities
law, rather than basic or corporate law.
At this point in our analyses, it appears clear that the basic foundational
law and securities law have an important, if not entirely consistent, eect in
strengthening equity markets. The association for corporate law, at least the
antidirector rights measure, is much less clear. The lack of positive eect
for corporate law is somewhat surprising, given the theory and some of the
past empirical ndings on antidirector rights measures of corporate law.
The prior empirical research has not combined corporate law and securities law, though. It may be that extensive securities law envelops the eects
of corporate law, that the positive eect of corporate law disappears when
broader antifraud protections of securities law are adopted. To consider
this possibility, the next analysis considers only those nations whose securities laws are below the median for the private enforcement variable of
signicance, to test for the eect of corporate law when securities laws are
relatively weak. Table 5.11 reports the results of the multiple regression
with control variables and absent the eect of securities laws.
The antidirector rights measure does relatively worse as a determinant of
stock market size and eciency in nations with weaker private enforcement
of securities laws. Only the continued anomalous results for mcap/s are
signicantly positive, as they were for the full sample of nations.
Table 5.11 contains one other suggestive, potentially very signicant
nding. The correlations for our factor variable of basic foundational law
lose much of their signicance in nations with weak securities laws. This at
181

stock markets in nations with weak securities laws
mcap/gdp smv/gdp
factor
adr
ethn
secon
R2
n
0.005
(0.989)
0.060
(0.806)
0.155
(0.664)
0.507
(0.212)
0.400
18
0.029
(0.936)
0.164
(0.497)
0.689
(0.065)
0.028
(0.943)
0.416
18
mcap/s
0.309
(0.457)
0.891
(0.028)
0.430
(0.354)
0.369
(0.507)
0.541
12
coc
adeqcap cash/price
0.560
0.227
(0.001) (0.500)
0.057 0.136
(0.519) (0.557)
0.012 0.356
(0.925) (0.302)
0.478
0.309
(0.004) (0.379)
0.945
0.620
14
14
0.681
(0.140)
1.029
(0.050)
0.608
(0.243)
0.407
(0.395)
0.659
9
mvol
0.350
(0.336)
0.024
(0.910)
0.260
(0.404)
1.192
(0.005)
0.610
16
least hints at the prospect that it is the substance of securities laws that is
most important for securities markets, rather than the substance of basic
property and contract law. However, with substantive securities laws in
place, it appears that the procedural attributes of the basic law (for example,
judicial independence and eciency), show a greater eect. Those legal procedural variables would be of relatively little value to markets, absent some
eective substantive law to implement. However, the signicance of the
foundational variables assumes importance in the presence of securities regulation, which demonstrates their contribution under those circumstances.
With the limitation to nations with below average securities law, the sample
size in this regression grows small, so one should be cautious about drawing
any conclusions from the results. The ndings certainly do not support the
hypothesis that corporate law is more important in the absence of strong
securities law. Indeed, our results show that it is securities law that has particular value, comparable to that of basic foundational law.
The next analysis focuses on public enforcement of the securities laws. As
noted above, the strong associations for securities law are associated
with private, not public, enforcement of these laws. Theoretically, public
enforcement should show some positive eect, though, if the securities laws
themselves contribute to ecient capital markets. To consider this eect in
a multiple regression with control variables, we repeat in Table 5.12 the
analyses reported in Table 5.10 above, but use public enforcement (pub)
rather than private enforcement for our securities law variable.
Public enforcement of securities laws is not a signicant determinant of
any of our nancial dependent variables. However, it is noteworthy that the
direction of the association is benecial in every one of the measures of the
public enforcement variable, which hints at some positive eect.
182
Table 5.12 Regression of groups of legal variables with public securities

law enforcement and control variables on stock markets
factor
adr
pub
ethn
secon
R2
n
mcap/gdp
smv/gdp
0.485
(0.047)
0.115
(0.493)
0.062
(0.712)
0.211
(0.228)
0.196
(0.469)
0.264
38
0.454
(0.072)
0.101
(0.562)
0.146
(0.406)
0.155
(0.392)
0.138
(0.605)
0.309
38
mcap/s
coc
adeqcap
0.269
0.518
0.697
(0.214) (0.007) (0.000)
0.429 0.028 0.075
(0.015) (0.844) (0.480)
0.255
0.237
0.133
(0.153) (0.114) (0.230)
0.135
0.070
0.017
(0.441) (0.635) (0.870)
0.114
0.356
0.278
(0.640) (0.089) (0.061)
0.443
0.505
0.774
33
35
34
cash/price
mvol
0.668
(0.512)
0.514
(0.059)
0.074
(0.768)
0.017
(0.939)
0.167
(0.511)
0.298
24
0.638
(0.534)
0.199
(0.844)
0.119
(0.390)
0.216
(0.129)
0.794
(0.001)
0.588
37
Moreover, it is important to recognize that the public enforcement variable does not truly capture the value of the regulatory actions of the
Securities and Exchange Commission. A central part of the SECs role is
the establishment of regulations for disclosure and otherwise, which are
enforceable through private actions. These regulations considerably facilitate private enforcement and their value would be expressed through the
private enforcement variable as well. The public enforcement variable captures just that, enforcement, and not the rule creation function of the SEC.
It does seem fair to conclude that in the securities law enforcement context,
it is the private right of action and not government prosecution which has
the greatest nancial value. This is unsurprising, because the remedy for
private violations can be many billions of dollars of damages to the harmed
investors, while public enforcement actions typically result in lesser sanctions, and because private enforcers may be more ecient in their choices
of the actions to be pursued.
INTERMEDIATE VARIABLES
The studies reported above, as well as a considerable body of other research,
indicate that legal variables are important to the size and eciency of equity
markets and the cost of capital in a nation. It is important to investigate
empirically how this eect takes place. The primary theoretical justication
for corporate law is its attempted correction of managerial agency problems.
The primary theoretical justication for securities law is its regime of
183
compelled disclosure, and associated protection against fraud and other

agency problems. The basic foundational law should serve to address these
same problems, though less directly, and the basic foundational law is also relevant to the enforcement of all legal rules, including those of corporate and
securities law.
One check on the broad nancial market results is to examine the eect
of the laws on measures of the intermediate agency problem and control
variable processes. If an eect shows up on these measures, we can have
greater condence in our overall ndings. Absent such an eect, the broader
ndings might be questioned as reecting the eect of some omitted variable. If disclosure requirements, for example, do not in fact produce better
quality disclosures, it is dicult to imagine how they would have a positive
eect on the markets. Of course, our test of eect on intermediate variables
can only be as good as those variables themselves. There can be no precise
quantitative measure for the accuracy of corporate disclosures or the degree
to which managers selessly represent the interest of their shareholders.
While the eect of legal rules on the intermediate steps necessary for
building strong equity markets is not as extensively studied as for the ultimate market variables, there is some existing research on the matter. One
published article examined accounting standards, the enforcement of
accounting standards (measured by a factor analysis variable including
both securities law and basic foundational law measures), and the accuracy
of earnings forecasts.34 The study found that strong enforcement was associated with higher forecast accuracy, which should imply more ecient
markets and relatively less risk for investors. Other research has found that
higher forecast accuracy is indeed associated with higher rm valuations.35
A variety of rough measures are available for our intervening intermediate variables. We begin with measures of corporate agency problems. Here,
we are heavily dependent on WCR survey measures for board prevention
of improper practices (bpip), board management of shareholder value
(bmsv), and corporate ethics (ethic). In addition, we have scales of simple
corporate governance quality prepared by the international consulting rm
of McKinsey & Co. (govq) and of governance opacity prepared by the
international accounting rm of PriceWaterhouseCoopers (govo). For
govq and govo, lower numbers are better, so a negative sign would be a
benecial association. One would hypothesize that there would be a positive signicant association between these variables and basic foundational
law and corporate law, with less likelihood for securities law. The governance opacity index does involve corporate disclosures, though, so a
higher association with securities law might be expected for this variable.
Table 5.13 reports the results of our standard multiple regression model on
these intermediate dependent variables, with the standard control variables.
184

intermediate agency problem variables
factor
adr
priv
ethn
secon
R2
n
bpip
bmsv
ethic
govq
govo
0.854
(0.000)
0.174
(0.271)
0.143
(0.379)
0.127
(0.419)
0.128
(0.542)
0.549
35
0.736
(0.001)
0.140
(0.386)
0.003
(0.987)
0.330
(0.047)
0.035
(0.871)
0.524
35
0.917
(0.000)
0.121
(0.384)
0.069
(0.625)
0.240
(0.089)
0.077
(0.676)
0.650
35
0.534
(0.022)
0.002
(0.992)
0.075
(0.728)
0.264
(0.168)
0.401
(0.112)
0.468
24
0.961
(0.019)
0.020
(0.947)
0.725
(0.067)
0.400
(0.219)
0.162
(0.219)
0.142
19
Here we see a very favorable association between the basic foundational

law and measures of higher quality corporate governance. Once again, the
corporate law variables do not show much eect. The securities law variable is signicant for the opacity variable, which is as expected. One surprising nding is the apparent association between higher levels of ethnic
fractionalization and better corporate governance. Perhaps companies in
these countries voluntarily adopt stronger corporate governance to overcome the somewhat lower levels of basic trust associated with ethnic heterogeneity, though this is speculative. These corporate governance quality
scales are highly subjective, but they do reect the perceptions of market
participants and therefore have real world signicance.
The next set of intermediate variables to be tested involve disclosure.
For this measure, we expect the securities law variables to be more important than corporate law variables, though the corporate law duty of disclosure might produce some eect. In this analysis, we rely heavily on
several measures by the Centre for International Financial Analysis
Research (CIFAR), which analyzes national corporate disclosure on
several dimensions. These include nancial disclosure intensity (nd),
corporate governance disclosure intensity (govd), aggregate disclosure
intensity (aggd), and timeliness of disclosure (timed). We also use the La
Porta, et al. variable for a rating of accounting standards as a dependent
disclosure variable. The independent variables are taken from the
basic model except, for securities law, we use the direct disclosure requirement variable. Table 5.14 reports the result in the same manner as the
preceding tables.
185

intermediate disclosure variables
factor
adr
disc
ethn
secon
R2
n
nd
govd
aggd
timed
accst
0.413
(0.061)
0.093
(0.591)
0.339
(0.064)
0.028
(0.869)
0.028
(0.903)
0.408
35
0.586
(0.013)
0.301
(0.102)
0.050
(0.786)
0.125
(0.489)
0.267
(0.271)
0.362
35
0.501
(0.011)
0.187
(0.219)
0.324
(0.044)
0.032
(0.835)
0.074
(0.714)
0.540
34
0.500
(0.037)
0.252
(0.171)
0.080
(0.666)
0.196
(0.294)
0.005
(0.986)
0.373
34
0.504
(0.007)
0.033
(0.828)
0.461
(0.005)
0.122
(0.407)
0.046
(0.809)
0.582
34
The results are roughly as might be expected. The factor measure for
basic foundational law is highly associated with the disclosure variables,
and the securities law disclosure requirement shows a signicant association for at least the nancial disclosure measures. Corporate law is not
signicant, though it approaches signicance for disclosures about corporate governance measures, which might be anticipated.
The analyses of the intermediate corporate governance and disclosure
variables generally conrm our broader ndings on the ultimate measure
of eects on nancial markets overall. The basic foundational law is consistently correlated with better quality corporate governance and better
quality corporate disclosures. Securities law shows some association with
disclosure quality, and these are the two variables that also demonstrated
the strongest association with larger and more ecient nancial markets.
Corporate law shows very little eect on the intermediate variables of interest and likewise shows very little eect on the broader ultimate nancial
market variables.
CONCLUSION
The empirical evidence conrms that the law matters, in a benecial way,
for nancial markets. We examined many dependent variables of nancial
signicance, both ultimate and intermediate, and the law frequently was
associated with better economic results. Table 5.15 summarizes the results
of the four multiple regressions (Tables 5.9, 5.10, 5.13 and 5.14) that used
186
Table 5.15 Summary of statistically signicant associations from multiple

regressions
basic foundational law
corporate law
securities law
18 positive, 1 negative
the three basic independent legal variables (factor, adr, priv, or disc).
Twenty four separate dependent variables were tested in these regressions.
These results are powerful, given the complicated context of crosscountry regressions. Despite the noisy nature of our dependent variables,
the basic law was signicant in the multiple regressions at the 0.10 level
three-quarters of the time, and securities law was signicant half of the
time. The simple regressions had an even greater frequency of statistical
signicance for the legal variables. Nearly all of the signicant associations
were in a benecial direction, with the prominent exception of the odd
regression on mcap/s, which was negative for the basic law but positive for
corporate law. The positive eect for the law was conrmed by the studies
of intermediate variables, which display the pathways through which the
law provides economic benets. The real world signicance of this frequency of positive statistical signicance is shown by the fact that ethnic
fractionalization and secondary education, two widely used cross-country
variables of obvious societal importance, were statistically signicant
determinants in only four of 24 regressions in which they were used. This
fact is ample evidence of the clarity of laws eect.
The basic foundational law appears to be especially important, as might
be surmised. Without this law, deals become unreliable and trust becomes
riskier. The foundational legal system creates rules protecting property and
enforcing contracts and establishes an adjudicatory structure to implement
those rules. As the rules and structure improve, the risk of investment and
other transactions decline, and the quantity and eciency of such transactions increase as theory projects.
Securities law is also very important to the success of nancial markets. It
is associated signicantly with larger and more ecient markets, at least as
captured by the private enforcement measure, which incorporates the disclosure requirements of securities law. This nding provides support for the theoretical hypotheses of Chapter 2, about the ability of even restrictive laws to
reduce transaction costs and create external economic information benets,
and the hypotheses of Chapter 3, about the systematic biases of behavioralism and the economic eciency values of addressing them through the legal
system. The substantiality of this benet can be roughly calculated.
187
We now estimate a very rudimentary calculation of the value of securities laws. Chapter 2 showed that the cost of going public for NYSE-listed
companies was around US$12.2 billion. This probably overstates the costs
of securities law itself by a considerable degree, but we use it for our
measure of costs for such laws. For benets, we employ the results of Table
5.9 above for the ratio of market capitalization to GDP, for which the best
point estimate for a unit change of priv was 0.341, and for which the 2000
ratio for the United States is 1.4344. If we apply these numbers to the contemporary capitalization of the NYSE, it suggests that the value of the
Exchange would be US$2.28 trillion lower, absent the securities laws, giving
a positive cost/valuation ratio for those laws of nearly 2000:1 for listed companies. This is only a rough estimate, of course, and it calculates the overall
value of the private enforcement of those laws, not marginal changes in the
requirements of the securities laws. This nding and our other results do
counter the claim that restrictive securities laws cause economic harm and
should at least put the onus on those who criticize securities law to justify
their position with something more than a generalized defense of private
ordering and criticism of government intervention in nancial markets.
Corporate law showed relatively little eect on nancial markets or the
intermediate variables. This is not a basis for dismissing the value of corporate law, as only the most dramatic eects will appear signicant in such
cross-national studies. Perhaps the variables used to measure corporate law
do not capture the essence of corporate law as well as for the other variables. The economic value of corporate law is apparent from rms consistent choice to incorporate themselves in Delaware and take advantage of
its legal system. If corporate law were trivial, there is no reason for such
concentration of locus of incorporation. However, the results suggest that
the corporate law variables are not a primary determinant of our nancial
variables.
While the reason that corporate law shows little signicant market eect
cannot be proved, it is possible to speculate. Possibly, corporate law is too
strong and overly empowers minority shareholders in corporate governance, thereby undermining good management by directors. Given the generally permissive nature of corporate law, though, this seems likely.
Corporate law may instead be overly permissive, and insuciently mandatory, thereby failing to reduce transaction costs and inecient behavioral
tendencies of managers and shareholders and leaving serious agency problems unaddressed. The greater positive results for the much more restrictive
securities law measures lends some credence to this theory that corporate
law may be insuciently restrictive. Mark Roe provides an alternative
explanation, that corporate law may fail because of opaque businesses or
social mistrust that impedes professionalization of management, and
188
suggests that the failure of corporate law in some nations is in its inability
to prevent mismanagement, even as it successfully prevents self-dealing.36
As the earlier theoretical chapters have discussed, there is a relatively
common economic presumption in favor of private ordering, without governmental restraint. This theory favors governmental action insofar as it
enforces private deals, thereby empowering such transactions, but disfavors
any governmental constraints on such deals. While there is little doubt that
the empowering functions of law, as reected in basic foundational law,
have considerable economic benet, restrictive securities law rules may also
produce signicant economic benets, measured in the trillions of dollars.
The pure private ordering paradigm is not optimal for securities markets.
NOTES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
Robert J. Barro, DETERMINANTS OF ECONOMIC GROWTH (1997).

Rafael La Porta, Florencio Lopez-de-Silanes, Andrei Shleifer, & Robert W. Vishny, Law
and Finance, 106 J. POL. ECON. 1113 (1998).
Rafael La Porta, Florencio Lopez-de-Silanes, Andrei Shleifer, & Robert W. Vishny, The
Quality of Government, 15 J. LAW ECON. ORG. 222 (1999).
Rafael La Porta, Florencio Lopez-de-Silanes, Andrei Shleifer, & Robert W. Vishny,
Investor Protection and Corporate Governance, 58 J. FIN. ECON. 3 (2000).
Rafael La Porta, Florencio Lopez-de-Silanes, Andrei Shleifer, & Robert W. Vishny,
Investor Protection and Corporate Valuation, 57 J. FIN. 1147 (2002).
Rafael La Porta, Florencio Lopez-de-Silanes, & Andrei Shleifer, What Works in
Securities Laws?, NBER Working Paper No. 9882 (July 2003).
Ross Levine, Law, Finance, and Economic Growth, 8 J. FIN. INTERMEDIATION 8
(1999).
Thorsten Beck, Asli Demirguc-Kent, & Ross Levine, Law, Politics, and Finance, World
Bank Working Paper No. 2585 (2001).
Ross Levine, Norman Loayza, & Thorsten Beck, Financial Intermediation and Growth:
Causality and Causes, 46 J. MON. ECON. 31 (2000).
Gerard Caprio, Luc Laeven, & Ross Levine, Governance and Bank Valuation, NBER
Working Paper No. W10158 (December 2003).
Thorsten Beck, Asli Demirguc-Kent, & Ross Levine, Law and Firms Access to Finance,
World Bank Working Paper No. 3194 (2004).
Leora F. Klapper & Inessa Love, Corporate Governance, Investor Protection, and
Performance in Emerging Markets, World Bank Working Paper No. 2818 (April 2002).
Omar Azfar & Thornton Matheson, Market-Mobilized Capital, 117 PUB. CHOICE 357
(2003).
Davide Lombardo & Marco Pagano, Legal Determinants of the Return on Equity, CESF
Working Paper No. 24 (October 1999).
Klaus Gugler, Dennis C. Mueller, & B. Burcin Yurtoglu, The Impact of Corporate
Governance on Investment Returns in Developed and Developing Countries, 113 ECON.
J. F511 (2003).
Frank H. Stephen & Stefan van Hemmen, Legal Rules and the Development of Financial
Systems, presented at the Conference of the European Association of Law and
Economics, September 2003.
Charles P. Himmelberg, R. Glenn Hubbard, & Inessa Love, Investor Protection,
Ownership, and the Cost of Capital, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No.
2834 (2002).

18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
189
Randall Morck, Bernard Yin Yeung, & Wayne Yu, The Information Content of Stock
Markets: Why Do Emerging Markets have Synchronous Stock Price Movements, 58
J. FIN. ECON. 215 (2000).
Edward Glaeser, Simon Johnson, & Andrei Shleifer, Coase versus The Coasians, 116
Q. J. ECON. 853 (2001).
Luzi Hail & Christian Leuz, International Dierences in the Cost of Equity Capital: Do
Legal Institutions and Securities Regulation Matter, Wharton Financial Institutions
Center Working Paper 0406 (November 2003).
Stijn Claessens & Luc Laeven, Financial Development, Property Rights, and Growth, 58
J. FIN. 2401 (2003).
Stulz & Williamson, Culture, Openness and Finance, NBER Working Paper No. 222
(2001).
See Ugo Mattei, COMPARATIVE LAW AND ECONOMICS (1997).
See Raghuram G. Rajan & Luigi Zingales, The Great Reversals: The Politics of Financial
Development in the 20th Century, NBER Working Paper No. 8178 (July 2002).
See James Gwartney, Robert Lawson, & Walter Block, ECONOMIC FREEDOM OF
THE WORLD 19751995 (1996); Gerald P. ODriscoll, Jr., Kim Holmes, & Melanie
Kirkpatrick, INDEX OF ECONOMIC FREEDOM (2000).
See Christopher Clague, et al., Contract-Intensive Money: Contract Enforcement,
Property Rights, and Economic Performance, 4 J. ECON. GROWTH 185 (1999).
See Thorsten Beck, Asli Demirguc-Kunt, & Ross Levine, A New Database on the
Structure and Development of the Financial Sector, 14 WORLD BANK ECON. REV.
597 (2000).
See Laura Nyantung Beny, Do Shareholders Value Insider Trading Laws? International
Evidence, Harvard John M. Olin Series Discussion Paper No. 345 (December 2001).
Robert Bushman, Joseph Piotrosi, & Abbie Smith, What Determines Corporate
Transparency?, 42 J. ACCTG. RES. 207 (2004).
Art Durnev & E. Han Kim, To Steal or Not to Steal: Firm Attributes, Legal Environment,
and Valuation (March 2004).
Data for this variable come from Albert Alesina, et al., FRACTIONALIZATION
(2003).
Data for this variable come from World Economic Forum, THE GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT 312 (1999).
Katharina Pistor, Martin Raiser, & Stanislav Gelfer, Law and Finance in Transition
Economies, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development Working Paper No.
48 (February 2000).
Ole-Kristian Hope, Disclosure Practices, Enforcement of Accounting Standards, and
Analysts Forecast Accuracy: An International Study, 41 J. ACCTG. RES. 235 (2003).
Mark H. Lang, Karl V. Lins, & Darius P. Miller, ADRs, Analysts, and Accuracy: Does
Cross Listing in the United States Improve a Firms Information Environment and Increase
Market Value?, 41 J. ACCTG. RES. 317 (2003).
Mark J. Roe, Corporate Laws Limits, 31 J. LEGAL STUD. 233 (2002).
6. Current controversies in law and

corporate nance
This book has heretofore made a case for the value of law in general and
securities law in particular in promoting the development of a nations
capital markets and economy. The new empirical evidence presented in
Chapter 5, in tandem with that produced by other scholars, conrms the
theory and clearly demonstrates that at least some aspects of securities laws
produce great economic benet for a nation. The prior chapters present
theoretical support that supplies the basis for these results. On a gross
overall basis, securities law is benecial, but this nding does not necessarily mean that any particular securities regulation is necessarily valuable.
Some regulations may go too far. Others may fail to implement the types
of practices that produce benets for corporate nance. Concern about
the eectiveness and eciency of securities regulation by the SEC has
prompted a series of major reform proposals in recent years.
This chapter applies our background understanding to several current
academic and political controversies surrounding US securities law and
regulation. Most recent reform proposals by academics embody a serious
deregulatory approach. These proposals include (a) deregulating insider
trading, (b) authorizing companies to contract out of liability for securities
fraud, (c) deregulating issuers in favor of registering investors, (d) creating
a competitive system of dierential state securities regulation, and (e) modifying or repealing much of the recently enacted Sarbanes-Oxley Act. All
of these proposals would minimize government regulation in favor of
private contracting to control fraud. This chapter applies the theory and
evidence set out in the preceding chapters to these controversies, supplemented by empirical evidence that is available on the specic issues.
This chapter emphasizes that although securities regulation in this
country certainly has room for improvement, its basic structure must be
maintained. Although even the authors of this text have specic ideas for
reforming and paring back some SEC rules and regulations, critiques of
specic provisions of Sarbanes-Oxley, for example, do not justify any proposal that would lead to substantial replacement of federal regulation by
private ordering.
190
191
INSIDER TRADING
The 1934 Exchange Act prohibitions on securities fraud and other securities law provisions outlaw insider trading in securities. Such insider trading
centrally involves prohibitions on corporate insiders, such as ocers and
directors and others privy to secret internal information, from selling or
buying stock based upon their private information gleaned from their positions. For example, these insiders usually have access to nancial information, such as quarterly prot reports, before the information is made public.
If such information is negative (worse than the market expects), an insider
could sell shares in his or her company before the market incorporates this
information in the companys value and prot from specialized nonpublic
knowledge. Of course, the law does not eectively prohibit all insider
trading, but it surely reduces the practice. The SEC cannot catch all wrongdoers, but by outlawing insider trading the law actually changes peoples
minds regarding the morality of insider trading and in that way, among
others, reduces its incidence.1 Research suggests that the legal prohibitions
prevent more blatant insider trading on advance knowledge of nancial
reports but do not prevent trading on more subjective inside information,
such as the future value of corporate research and development activities.
Intuitively, such insider trading seems unfair to most market investors. It
is unethical because it allows insiders to prot at the expense of outsiders
who cannot trade on equal footing no matter how diligently they follow the
market.2 It allows managers to appropriate for their own purposes information that rightfully belongs to their principals. Beyond these equitable
instincts, economic analysis suggests that insider trading puts outside
investors at greater risk and thereby discourages equity investments and
undermines capital markets.
Some, however, have suggested that parties be allowed to trade on inside
information. The legalization of insider trading is generally associated with
arguments initially made some time ago by a leading law and economics
scholar, Henry Manne.3 His theory was that because corporate insiders
were generating the inside information, they might therefore be given some
sort of property right in it. This would supposedly encourage insiders to
generate more useful information and, in the process, make the market
more informative and ecient. Manne even suggested that prots from
insider trading constitute the only eective compensation scheme for
entrepreneurial services in large corporations.4 Manne argued that this
eciency can benet other traders. For example, by driving down the price
of shares of a failing company through insider trading, insiders may
protect other investors from buying the shares at an inated price. Some
economists and others have agreed with Manne and argued that eciency
192
considerations counsel for legalizing insider trading in stock.5 Insider

trading, it has been argued, can also compensate controlling shareholders
for their status and eliminate their need to diversify their portfolios.6
In a similar vein, others have argued that insider trading can be
restrained, if need be, without government statutory intervention.7 Under
this plan, companies could contractually prohibit their insiders from
trading in corporate stock, or allow insider trading on certain terms.
Allowing such trading could serve as a form of compensation to the insiders and thereby replace other compensation, such as salaries and bonuses,
to some degree. In the process, allowing corporate insiders to trade on nonpublic information could benet the company, by saving it money it would
otherwise have to pay in compensation.
Assuming that these contractual relationships are not secret, investors
can decide whether to trade in the shares of a company that allows insider
trading. They can make their own assessment of the tradeo between the
negative of dealing with others who have superior knowledge and the possible benet of more accurate market prices using the inside information.
The fact that few companies prohibited insider trading before the federal
government stepped in may be viewed as evidence that this is an ecient
form of compensation. Such private decisions are generally regarded by
economists as ecient. When insider trading is bad for a company, the
company presumably would prohibit it.
On its face this theory of benecial insider trading suers from some substantial theoretical challenges. First, the assumption that inside information
will be more quickly translated into market prices is not at all clear. The
extent that insiders can prot from nonpublic information by trading is proportional to the degree to which the market price is otherwise inaccurate.
Insiders thus have an incentive to make the actual market price as inaccurate as possible, in order to prot from its correction. There is relatively little
incentive for insiders to correct marginal mispricing by promptly supplying
information to the market. Rather, they benet from waiting until the
market price is far from the mark. They even have some incentive to rst
make the market price erroneous, so that they can prot from its correction.
Indeed, this was the reality in the famous early insider trading case, SEC v.
Texas Gulf Sulphur Co.8 In that case, a company with a major mineral nd
rst misleadingly downplayed its signicance while insiders traded and only
later announced the full scope of the discovery, enabling insider prots.
Thus, insider trading enables insiders to prot even from inaccurate
information that is of no eciency benet. The ideal strategy for insider
prot might be rst to release inaccurate, disappointing information about
the companys nancial results. This would have the eect of driving the
price to a low level. Then, the insider could buy up large numbers of shares
193
at low prices and release the accurate, positive information about the
company, which would produce a rise in share price from which the insider
would prot. The key to such a schemes success is purposeful dissemination of inaccurate information that is only later corrected. Insiders can reap
the most prots when a share price is very volatile, and they can manipulate and benet from the volatility by the selective release of accurate or
inaccurate positive or negative information. Because the information in
question is nonpublic, outside investors have no idea whether the original
negative or later positive information represents the true and accurate
report of the companys situation. This creates inecient markets and obviously makes outsiders reluctant to invest in capital markets. More rigorous
theoretical analyses have shown the ineciency of allowing insider trading,
for it can drive capital out of the market, increase the costs of funds and
thereby damage overall economic welfare.9
The prevailing rules of insider trading encourage management to
promptly supply relevant information to the market. The basic rule of insider
trading is disclose or abstain,10 that is, insiders must either refrain from
buying or selling stock in their company or disclose all material information
to the market. Insiders have a considerable incentive to trade shares in their
company. Many have large shareholdings resulting from options or other
incentive compensation and need to sell those shares to diversify their portfolios. This encourages insiders to fully release all material nonpublic information in order to be able to legally trade in their companys stock. To allow
insider trading would reverse the incentives and discourage such public disclosures. One study conrmed this intuition, nding that more trading by
insiders was linked to lesser information content in quarterly earnings
reports.11
Insider trading is also a poor method of compensating ocers.
Shareholders want to pay ocers for doing a good job and making the
company thrive. Thus, companies provide stock or options that will prot
the insider if share prices increase or bonuses based on corporate performance. Insider trading compensation, by contrast, would allow an ocer
to prot greatly from corporate failure. The insider could sell short the
companys shareholdings while running the company into the ground and
then disclose the companys collapse and prot from plummeting share
prices. Because it is no doubt easier to make a corporation fail than succeed
in a competitive market, this corporate destruction scheme might be the
most protable strategy for insiders.
Insider trading is also an ineective method of encouraging employees
to do their jobs well. Professor Manne only assumes that allowing insider
trading encourages the production of benecial information. A perusal of
litigated insider trading cases makes it clear that most insider trading is
194
done by people other than those who actually produce the information, and
that insider trading is just as protable when the news created is bad as
when it is good.
Allowing insider trading could also signicantly disrupt corporate management.12 Ocers might prot from trading on inside information, absent
prohibitions. The potential magnitude of their prots will be greater if they
are the only ones trading on the information. This creates an incentive for
ocers not to share information internally, at least not promptly, in an
internal competitive drive to prot from the information. Alternatively,
they might manipulate information submitted to coworkers in order to
advance their personal investment objectives.
The considerations raised in our prior chapters also counsel against the
legalization of insider trading. Given the well-established agency problems
associated with shareholder control of ocers, the fact that a company may
voluntarily permit insider trading does not establish that the authorization
is an ecient one in the interest of shareholders. Because there is substantial evidence that current compensation schemes in major public companies
are anything but ecient,13 there is no reason to believe that insider trading
compensation schemes would be either. Again, while one might hope that
insiders would not sacrice the companys interests to advance their own in
so naked a fashion, during the dot.com boom more stock option compensation for ocers tended to create more earnings management14 and more
nancial restatements.15
There is reason to believe that true arms length bargaining, absent
agency problems, would privately prohibit insider trading. One study found
that insider trading prots for ocers were smaller in companies with institutional shareholders and where the board chairman was not the chief
executive ocer.16 Because the latter features are closely associated with
better corporate control over ocers, the nding suggests that insider
trading does represent a manifestation of agency problems, with ocers
taking advantage of the shareholders they are supposed to be serving.
Allowing insider trading also increases transaction costs for investors.
Investors might reasonably have varying views of the value of allowing
insider trading and prefer to invest in rms that prohibit, or dont prohibit,
the practice. Before investing in a company, parties would have to identify
the corporations practices. If this were simply a binary (allow/disallow)
matter, this investigation would be simple, but companies are likely to
adopt more rened rules that permit insider trading by some insiders but
not by others, and under some circumstances but not in others. The need
to identify particular corporate practices would add cost (or risk) to investing. Even if Manne were correct that insider trading carries some benets,
they might not outweigh these increased transaction costs.
195
Behavioral considerations further justify insider trading restrictions.

Emotions can play a signicant role in peoples decisionmaking. One feature
of this is the level playing eld or fairness criterion. People are generally
unwilling to participate in a game that they believe to be unfairly rigged to
benet others. Insider trading is just the sort of rigging of the investment
game that can cause people to avoid it. Even in the unlikely event that insider
trading did improve market eciency, some people might avoid markets for
fear that they would be the ones taken advantage of by insiders with nonpublic information. As discussed in Chapter 3, humans intrinsically value
fairness. Indeed, one of the strongest human desires is not to be made a
sucker. People are so concerned with fairness that they will punish those
who act unfairly, even at economic cost to themselves.17 Therefore, many
potential investors will reject participating in markets that seem structurally
unfair. This will undermine trust in equity markets generally. Insofar as
insider trading will increase and inevitably be sometimes publicized,
investors may even overestimate and overreact to its occurrence (due to the
availability heuristic) and shy away from markets (due to their loss aversion).
Thus, behavioral research also suggests that a companys internal decision
to allow insider trading as compensation will not in fact be an ecient one.
Regret theory nds that people have negative emotional responses not
just to a loss but to feeling responsible for the loss. Individuals who suer
after taking a risk, say on others honesty, feel shamed and blameworthy.
This psychological feature also shows up in anticipated regret; people will
avoid circumstances where they fear they are likely to suer regret.18
Trading in a market where some can use inside information is just the situation to produce such anticipated regret. People tend to avoid the risk of
regret by preferring inaction to action.19 Allowing insider trading surely
increases the risk of regret by other investors and therefore reduces the
number of people willing to play the game.
Although the theoretical case for allowing insider trading is thus weak,
the debate over regulatory prohibitions must be informed by empirical
research. Laura Beny has conducted analyses of the strength of insider
trading laws in around 30 countries.20 Her variables included the scope of
the law, the nature of sanctions, whether there was liability for tipping, and
other measures, as well as measures of the enforcement of these laws. She
found that countries with stronger insider trading laws had greater dispersion of ownership, had more informative pricing of shares, and had more
liquid stock markets. In contrast to the more general ndings on securities
laws and disclosures, she found that public enforcement of insider trading
laws was especially important to reap their benets.
Other research has generally conrmed Benys basic ndings about the
value of banning insider trading. Bhattacharya and Daouk studied a broad
196
sample of more than one hundred nations and found that most had some
formal prohibition on insider trading but that only a minority had actually
enforced those prohibitions.21 They compared these nations on various
measures, including the mean returns and liquidity of rms, the value of
the companies, the cost of equity, and country risk measures. They found
that the mere presence of a prohibition had little eect on the cost of capital
but that the active enforcement of the prohibition had a substantial positive eect in decreasing the cost of equity. Another study combined the
LaPorta measures for securities law with the Bhattacharya and Daouk
insider trading enforcement measures and found that the combined variable was associated with statistically signicant benets.22 After insider
trading is restricted, analyst following of companies increases.23
Other research also seems to contradict the claimed benets of insider
trading. A study using a dierent measure found that countries with more
insider trading had more volatile stock markets.24 A study of the Polish
stock market found that insider trading did not make the market quantitatively more ecient by reducing earnings surprises, as Manne assumed
would occur. Two reasons for this result were that outsiders misinterpreted
the meaning of insiders trading and that independent analysts showed less
interest in following rms with substantial insider trading.25
While Manne and others have made a purely theoretical case for eliminating insider trading prohibitions, the theory assumes optimal private
eciency in decisionmaking. That assumption is dubious given the presence of agency problems and transaction costs, added to the behavioral
nance considerations. The empirical evidence now consistently arms the
economic benet of insider trading prohibitions. The proposal to legalize
insider trading is not in the best interest of capital markets. When Manne
made his original argument in favor of insider trading 40 years ago, the
United States was virtually alone in outlawing the practice. Over this
period, virtually every developed nation in the world has rejected Mannes
arguments and outlawed insider trading. Not a single nations experience
with these laws has led it to reconsider and reauthorize insider trading.
CONTRACTING AROUND FRAUD

Central to the laws generally and securities law in particular are proscriptions against fraud, especially misrepresentations made prior to stock purchases. Parties have sought to escape the commands of those laws in their
private contracts and proponents of private contracting as an alternative to
governmental securities regulation believe that they should be able to do
so. Consider a situation where an investor and potential plainti agrees to
197
provisions in an investment contract that he or she will not be able to sue

for certain statements that may be misrepresentations. Typically, this
involves a written contract that functionally exonerates any false oral representations that the potential defendant had made to the investor. In Carr
v. CIGNA Securities,26 an unsophisticated investor was orally told that
certain investments were safe and conservative, an assurance that was contradicted by certain disclosures buried in 427 pages of documents delivered
to the plainti. The court found that even if the plainti could prove that
he had been lied to, the written disclaimer was eective to prevent plainti
from suing.
When adopting the 1933 Securities Act, Congress enacted an explicit
provision in section 29(a) that prevented waivers of its provisions, even if
they were express and knowing on the part of the investors. The 1934
Exchange Act carries a comparable savings provision. Although these provisions generally prevent courts from giving eect to simple waivers of coverage, issuer companies and securities industry professionals have designed
strategies to achieve the same eect. As in Carr, this could be through use
of a written contract with an integration clause that disclaims the eect of
prior oral representations. Other companies have written nonreliance
clauses, where investors declare that they did not rely on earlier misstatements, which tends to defeat any securities fraud action (because reliance is
an essential element of any such claim). Courts have divided over the eect
of these provisions. Some courts have held that the contract provisions are
an impermissible circumvention of the antiwaiver provision and perhaps
part of a broader scheme to defraud, but others have given eect to contractual provisions disclaiming liability for misstatements or other fraud.
Contractual modications of liability present the transaction costs
problem associated with private ordering in the absence of securities fraud
regulation. An investor must scrutinize the contract closely and ascertain
what rights it retains in the event of fraud. Judge Posner, who has allowed
contracting around fraud, acknowledged this fact, writing that contracts
are costly to make and that such added costs can outweigh the investment
benets.27 These investment losses could be economically ecient if society
could count on the parties wisdom in contracting around fraud, but this
decision is infected by the agency problems that make sensible observers
dubious of managerial fraud insulation generally. Sometimes, the contract
may be quite clear in disclaiming fraud actions, and the investor would be
aware of what it was sacricing without high transaction costs. Of course,
these lower transaction cost contracts are precisely the sorts of blanket
waivers that Congress explicitly prohibited.
In addition to the transaction costs of examining the contract itself, the
potential plainti must also assume additional transaction costs in assessing
198
the desirability of the investment in light of the contractual limitations. An

investor must also engage in a more searching ex ante investigation into the
risk of fraud (an investigation made less necessary by the availability of a
subsequent liability action). These additional costs are not ameliorated by the
clarity and consciousness of the scope of the contract, and some reduction
in investments will occur due to the added costs of investing imposed by the
contract, in addition to the economic costs associated with the fraud itself.
The behavioral case against contracting around fraud is even stronger.
When investors are presented with lengthy written contracts, many will
simply sign the contracts without examining them in detail. The terms are
usually contracts of adhesion that cannot be altered by negotiation in any
event. Certainly the employee whom the investor deals with typically will
not have the authority to alter the provision. It is not worth the time and
other transaction costs associated with contractual detailinvestors will
either make a leap of faith or not invest. Those who suer the overoptimism
or overcondence biases will tend to make the leap of faith, though it may
not be an economically ecient decision. Those with more cautious biases
will avoid investing in equity securities. Chapter 3 explained how traditional eciency theories of contracting omit behavioral considerations that
prevent optimum results and articially favor the party proposing the contract. Investors will either agree to inecient form contracts intended to
evade fraud proscriptions or decline to trade at all. Eventually, this will
create norms that undermine trust in the system overall.
Investment decisions are also colored by the false consensus eect, which
causes people to believe that others see the world as they do.28 Thus, honest
people expect others to be honest, while those who are less trustworthy tend
to be less trusting. This creates an arbitrary system in which investors
assume (or refuse to assume) risks without regard to the true probability or
magnitude of those risks. The aw is compounded by the general inability
of people to detect deception by others. Numerous studies have shown that
the average person is not a good detector of others dishonesty.29
In addition, people tend to be inuenced by the salience of oral communications, which are more vivid, when the written contract disclaimers
provide that the oral communications made in association with the investment are meaningless. Legal rules against fraud create a framework that
promotes trust in these deals (by deterring brokers or others from committing fraud). Eliminating those legal rules sends a message to securities professionals and issuing companies that it is permitted (and therefore
arguably ethical) to mislead investors. Ultimately, such a regime must result
in an atmosphere of less trust and fewer transactions.
The prospect of contracting around fraud is not as threatening to the economic benets of the securities laws as are many other proposed changes.
199
Most transactions in securities are executed in an anonymous marketplace.

Governed by the Exchange Act, these transactions have no written contract
between buyer and seller by which fraudulent misrepresentations may be
evaded. Thus, this approach does not strike at the foundation of securities
law, as do other proposals. Its primary eect is in protecting brokers or
private issuers from fraud actions. However, allowing contracting around
fraud raises precisely the same concerns, just on a smaller scale. Enforcing
contracts that preclude fraud claims simply shifts some securities transactions from the regulatory scheme to a market-based scheme. The theoretical concerns about market costs and the empirical evidence amply conrm
that this is an inecient shift. It benets individual potential defendants but
inevitably undermines the capital markets generally.
ISSUER DEREGULATION
The US securities law system is primarily built around the regulation of
issuers, the companies whose stock is traded. These are the entities that
must make periodic lings with the SEC, reporting such information as revenues and prots. The public disclosure requirements tested in Chapter 5
involve disclosures by issuers. A recent article by Stephen Choi has called
for a major restructuring in this system, which deregulates issuers in favor
of investor regulation.30
Choi argues that the current model of regulating issuers is an inecient,
indirect regulation of investors that prevents them from making certain
investments that they wish to make. He suggests that many rational
investors inevitably lose out on desirable opportunities but recognizes that
investors have various degrees of sophistication. He would recognize four
dierent categories of investors, based on their level of knowledge. Then he
would impose a sliding scale of restrictions on their investment choice,
depending on the degree of their knowledge and sophistication. Wellinformed investors would face relatively little regulation of their investment
choices. They could freely bargain for just the level of disclosure and fraud
protection that they desired, presumably paying more for their securities if
they desired more protection and less if they were willing to take their
chances. Unsophisticated investors would not be permitted to invest in any
instruments other than passive mutual funds.
The underlying basis of Chois creative proposal is that government rules
inevitably interfere with ecient free markets. However, Choi largely
ignores the ability of uniform rules to minimize transaction costs and create
valuable network eects, or perhaps he just too casually assumes it away.
Choi acknowledges that too many separate private fraud protection rules
200
could produce mass confusion among investors. He suggests that such

uncertainty and associated transaction costs might be reduced if regulators
publicized the contents of the private rules selected by issuers on the
Internet. Of course, any multiplication of choices involves greater transaction costs, and publicizing the mere content of contractual rules does little
to reduce costs. The relevant issue is how those rules will be applied to a
given investors case, which would require ongoing monitoring of the judicial implementation of each of the rules, in all relevant jurisdictions.
Basically, the proposal rests on an entirely unsupported assumption that
sophisticated investors are better o with more risky options and much
greater uncertainty and transaction costs associated with choosing among
those options. Choi has no evidence for this claim.
Even assuming away the transaction costs problem, the issuer deregulation proposal has a signicant agency problem. The individuals who would
choose the menu of fraud protection options to be oered investors are the
very corporate ocers who are most likely to be sued under those options.
They have every incentive to adopt a self-protective rule rather than the
most economically ecient standard. Shareholder voting rights and other
protections under corporate law are too weak to provide protection against
this self-serving behavior. While such laws are important and produce
benets, the empirical evidence, such as that discussed in Chapter 5,
demonstrates that corporate law is insucient and inferior to securities law
in producing economic benets. In addition, allowing management to
select a securities fraud regime adds yet another level of transaction costs
for shareholders, monitoring managements actions in this regard.
Intermediary monitors have proved ineective at correcting this problem.
Given the undeniable agency problems, there is no reason to believe that
corporate managers will select economically optimum fraud protection, as
opposed to self-interested decisions. Consider that during the dot.com
boom, managers were happy to exaggerate earnings so that they could personally benet by hitting stock option targets, even though their rms were
then saddled with paying real income taxes on the imaginary earnings.31
Research in behavioral economics also counsels against Chois proposal.
Some overcondent investors will leap into markets without fraud protection, and while they will provide some capital, they will encourage fraudulent and inecient use of those resources. Other more risk-averse investors
and those who require assurances of fairness will stay out of the equity
markets altogether, depriving them of capital. A program of investor education and regulation will not overcome these problems. The research shows
that even educated professionals often employ inecient behavioral heuristics in decisionmaking.32 For example, studies have shown that professionals, including securities analysts, suer biases such as overcondence.33
201
Even proponents of greater investor education concede that it cannot

eectively protect against fraud.34 Other biases, such as the false consensus
eect and other psychological susceptibilities noted in the previous section,
also prevent Chois ecient negotiation from occurring.35 While these
ex ante behavioral features also aect the current system, the status quo
oers investors an eective remedy in the event of fraud, while the issuer
deregulation plan could eliminate that remedy, by taking advantage of
behavioral characteristics.
The clearest evidence against the issuer deregulation proposals lies in the
empirical evidence. While no nation has regulated investors, the central part
of Chois proposal, from which its alleged merits emanate, is the deregulation of issuers. Many nations have limited regulation of issuers, with no
public disclosure rules or other requirements. As detailed in Chapters 2 and
5, these nations have suered from the lack of compulsory national issuer
regulation for fraud. Nations with stronger issuer regulation have larger
and more ecient stock markets. Natural experiments such as the developing markets of post-communist Eastern Europe show the same benets
of issuer regulation.
US history further conrms the value of issuer regulation. Prior to the
creation of such regulation, there was little disclosure. The initial adoption
of the 1933 and 1934 Acts had some positive eect on the stock market.
Choi contends that investors will be able to bargain for contractual fraud
protection, but this did not occur prior to federal intervention in the
market. Observers of corporate disclosure practices at the time noted
the atmosphere of secrecy which prevails so widely in corporate circles.36
The positive eect of securities regulation has grown over time, and again
revealed its benets when regulation is extended to new internal markets.
The value provided foreign companies that voluntarily cross-list and
assume US regulatory burdens (rather than contractually doing so) further
establishes the economic virtues of uniform government securities regulation. The fact that other companies do not cross-list may simply be testimony to their inability or unwillingness to provide protections against
fraud generally benecial to investors.
Chois plan of issuer deregulation and investor regulation is functionally
little dierent from simply allowing an unregulated free market in securities. Its structure relies on the ecient market negotiation and implementation of contractual fraud protection schemes for investors. For the
economic reasons set forth in Chapter 2 and the behavioral considerations
of Chapter 3, this structure is an inferior one that will undermine capital
markets. The theoretical response to this proposal is amply conrmed by
the historical evidence described in Chapter 4 and the quantitative empirical analyses of Chapter 5. Bernie Black has concluded that the essential
202
prerequisites for strong securities markets are laws that give minority
shareholders (1) good information about the value of a companys business; and (2) condence that the companys insiders . . . wont cheat
investors out of most of the value of their investment.37 Issuer deregulation undermines both objections and thus would be an unwise modication
to the current system of securities law. As Black stated elsewhere, [i]ts
magical, in a way. People pay enormous amounts of money for completely
intangible rights. Internationally, this magic is pretty rare. It does not
appear in unregulated markets.38
COMPETITIVE REGULATION
A relatively new reform proposal contends that competition among regulators can produce superior securities law. Competition could arise from
various sources, but the primary proposal has involved creating competitive state securities regulation regimes. Securities regulation began at the
state level with legislation commonly known as blue sky laws that were
discussed in Chapter 4. The national securities laws and regulations were
adopted precisely because this existing competitive state law regime was
sorely inadequate. Some wish to restore states to primacy, though.
Roberta Romano has argued that securities regulation should be
returned to the states in order to create competitive regulatory systems.39
This approach would parallel current corporate law, in which companies
may choose in which state to incorporate and thereby choose the rules that
govern them. While Romano has suggested that states are closer to the
aected bodies, the focus of her proposal stresses the benets of competition among the producers of securities law.
Competition among states, Romano argues, gives regulators an incentive
to be accountable and responsive to the demands of the regulated. By creating better securities regulations, the theory suggests that states will attract
more companies and capital that adopt their rules. This would also act to
spur innovative regulatory improvements. Attracting more companies
could in turn attract more revenue through fee payments to the states. The
states would engage in a competitive race to the top in pursuit of the best
rules. The spur of competition would make the state actions preferable to
those of the federal government.
One fundamental theoretical problem with this approach is its presumption that states will behave in an economically ecient manner in structuring their governing rules. Gillian Hadeld and Eric Talley have challenged
this premise that states behave like prot-maximizing rms, choosing laws
and regulations that maximize state prots.40 State legislators gain some
203
benet from creating ecient laws, and regulated parties have an opportunity to aect their decisions. Agency problems certainly infect governmental responses to public interest, as collective interests and lobbyists are
certainly inuential.
The operationalization of this competitive regime is also somewhat
unclear, even if state governments did operate eciently. A states incentive
to produce optimal securities law supposedly involves the receipt of fees.
Yet there is no obvious reason why a company would be required to pay a
fee to use a states law. A company need not be located in a state, or even
have any connection to a state, to use that law. Choice of law clauses in
contracts are commonplace, and could adopt any states law in connection
with their share issuances. Such clauses would not necessarily extend to
private secondary market sales of shareholders, but there is no obvious way
that a state could prot from use of its law in such transactions. Indeed, the
use of law in these sales would presumably raise choice of law issues beyond
the control of the corporations that are supposedly selecting the laws, a
problem discussed further below.
Even if the state governments did not engage in eective competition for
optimal securities laws, competitive state regulation could theoretically
still yield benets by enabling companies to vote with their feet and
choose the states with the best laws. They would have a menu of 50 laws
from which to select. Assuming at least one of the state laws provided a
better system than the current federal law, the ability of businesses to
choose that better system could provide better regulation. Or perhaps
dierent regimes better t dierent types of companies, so the exibility
would be ecient.
The most obvious problem with this theory of state competition is that
it allows the regulated entity to choose its regulator, which is akin to allowing the fox to guard the henhouse. The purpose of the securities laws is to
protect investors, but they will not be choosing the state regulatory regime.
Rather, this choice will inevitably be made by corporate management,
which is the entity to be constrained by securities regulation. A management that wishes to defraud investors or simply wishes to preserve its
exibility would not choose the optimal system of securities regulation, it
would choose the least constraining system. Rather than a race to the
top, we could have a race to the bottom, with inecient laws that fail to
protect against fraud.41 The adoption of anti-takeover statutes, provisions
protecting directors from liability for their managerial shortcomings, and
other recent changes in state corporate law are more consistent with a race
to the bottom than one to the top.
Of course, management decisions are constrained to some degree by
investors, as ocers need to attract capital. Investors might prevent a true
204
race to the absolute bottom, with management choosing the weakest securities regulations, but this does not eliminate the basic agency problem discussed in Chapter 2. For investors to constrain management in the choice
of regulatory regime, they would have to familiarize themselves with the
functioning of 50 state regimes. Managers are likely to forgo some investment and share price gain, in order to be able to immunize themselves (and
their lucrative salaries) from oversight. This is another of the greatest shortcomings of the competitive state regulation approach, the transaction costs
that it imposes.
Competitive state regulation would lose the foremost font of the benets
of securities regulation, which derive from reduced transaction costs and
network eects. Investors would have signicantly increased transaction
costs under a competition program. They would have to familiarize themselves with the laws of 50 states. The laws could vary in innumerable ways,
such as accounting standards, substantive fraud rules, procedural enforcement rules, and others. The investor eort would involve not only investigation of the legislation itself but also implementing administrative rules
(which may change over time) and judicial interpretations of the law. Not
only may these judicial interpretations change, but they also depend on the
nature of the states judicial system, the investigation into which represents
yet another transaction cost. Moreover, investors would have to discern
which states law governs their potential lawsuit, a determination that could
be quite complicated in practice. In the process, all the ecient simplifying
network eects of a single fraud governance system are lost.
The choice of state laws that apply to a given case is an extraordinarily
complex eld of law. The general standards for such choice of law involve
the state where the underlying events took place and the state with the
greatest interest in its resolution. The underlying events in a securities fraud
action would be the actual purchase or sale (which might be the location of
the stock exchange on which the shares were traded) or the fraudulent
actions complained of. The latter might well be the corporate headquarters
where the primary ocers were located but not necessarily, as the fraud
might involve revenue recognition by lower level ocers at various locales
about the country or the state in which the company was incorporated (the
source of its corporate governance law rules). This creates a substantial
problem insofar as the applicable securities law will neither be clear to
investors nor within the control of the corporation purportedly seeking the
optimally ecient law to govern transactions in its securities. This problem
substantially enhances both the transaction costs and risks for investors
and undermines the claimed benets of the competitive law selection
system. The problem might be overcome by an arbitrary choice of law rule
based on the companys adoption of particular securities laws but this
205
would be a substantial departure from prevailing rules, losing their established benets, and would also be dicult to enforce (as any given state
would have the right to reject this standard).
The competitive system is also questionable in the light of behavioral
decisionmaking analysis. The managers who make the decisions about
choice of securities law will make self-serving decisions. If they did not do
so, there would be no agency problem and no need for law whatsoever, and
we could count on voluntary disclosure. Unfortunately, the reality is that
even honest managers will be inuenced by unconscious self-serving biases
that infect their decisionmaking.
Behavioral considerations also aect the ability of investors to respond
to managerial choices to use the securities laws of a particular state. Putting
a market price on the dierence between two state laws would be extremely
dicult, especially when those laws may change and are substantially
inuenced by unknown future administrative interpretations and judicial
rulings. It is dicult to imagine how an investor would be able to judge the
eectiveness of dierent regulatory regimes, much less quantify that knowledge in a manner allowing the investor to change the purchasing or selling
price of a particular security.42 Without this ability, investors are necessarily economically at sea, forced to make investment judgments they
cannot accurately value or, if they are risk averse, avoid many investments
due to the valuation uncertainty.
There is no empirical experience with competitive state securities laws by
which this competitive regulation proposal may be tested, but there are
some slightly analogous contexts to examine. Corporate law, for example,
is largely left to state governance. In corporate law, Delaware has become
the overwhelmingly preponderant source of law for major national corporations. This state primacy might be due to the fact that Delaware law is
optimal, but this seems unlikely. More likely, the decision is attributable to
network eects. Reincorporation to change the law of corporate governance is an extremely rare event, suggesting that the market is not truly
competitive, and the predominance of Delaware law refutes suggestions
that dierent rms could benet from dierent laws. Moreover, other states
have generally not even sought to compete with Delaware, because the tax
receipts from being the locus of incorporation are quite small.43 Instead,
they have typically piggybacked upon such law, with limited exceptions
such as anti-takeover laws, which are a dubious defense for state choice.
Additionally, the corporate law context is unaected by the substantial
choice of law problems, as the widespread internal aairs doctrine provides that corporate law cases are governed by the state of incorporation.
When state corporate laws do change, state legislators appear to act to
satisfy local constituencies, such as the demands of major employers, rather
206
than in an eort to attract more corporations.44 Delaware has become dominant, and network eects ensure that it preserves this position. Other states
have largely adopted Delawares law, rather than competing with it, and
Romano concedes that the substantive content of the 50 state corporation
laws is substantially uniform.45 Ninety-seven percent of new incorporations choose either Delaware or their home state, which does not suggest
the presence of any meaningful competition.46 In short, competition
among states to provide corporate law is largely a myth and therefore provides no reasonable basis for arguing that a similar regime of competition
to provide securities law could succeed. If there is no meaningful competition to provide corporate law, a realm where the states have been the
primary providers for decades, how much less likely is it that there will be
meaningful competition to provide securities law where the states have
played only a supporting role (and have no obvious means of proting)?
Europe has provided something of a natural experiment for such choice.
While the continent has some coordinated governance, individual nations
persist and historically established their own securities laws. This was a competitive system, though evidence indicates that it was not working
eciently.47 This system recently changed as the European Union adopted
uniform securities disclosure requirements in order to bring more consistency to regulation, as dierent standards were inhibiting cross-border
trading. Inconsistent international standards were limiting the number of
investors willing to purchase ownership from corporations governed by
dierent laws. The continent harmonized its laws in order to provide stronger
capital markets.48 The mere fact that European governments are moving
toward a centralized system and coordinated standards resembling the US
model refutes competitive regulatory proposals, because those proposals rely
on the assumption that governments will make ecient decisions.
In some respects, the competitive state regulation approach appears to
oer the worst of both worlds. While the purported benets of such competition arise from market-based checks on regulatory systems, it is inferior
to a purely private system. In a private system, companies could design any
investor protection scheme and implement it via contract. Regulatory competition loses much of this assumed competitive benet, because it limits
corporate choices to those oered by the states and requires formal government approval, legislative or bureaucratic, before any new systems could be
implemented. The disadvantage of the purely private system lies in transaction costs and network eects (addressed in Chapter 2) and inecient
behavioral decisionmaking heuristics (addressed in Chapter 3). Regulatory
competition suers these same disadvantages. While transaction costs
might be slightly reduced by the limit of regulations to 50 state systems,
they would not be much reduced, given the need to understand and monitor
207
50 dierent systems, not to mention the interpretation of those systems by

50 dierent state court systems. State regulatory competition proposals thus
oer nearly all the disadvantages of private systems with only a fraction of
their benets. Given the demonstrated empirical superiority of federal securities regulation over private systems, the competitive state system seems to
oer a poor alternative.
A related proposal would not rely on state government regulation but
instead on regulation by the private securities exchanges, on which stocks
are listed for purchase and sale.49 Unlike the states, stock markets do have
a meaningful nancial incentive to compete for listings and they do currently compete for this purpose. Although the New York Stock Exchange
has long been predominant, it has increasingly faced competitors. Thus,
actual competition among these groups has somewhat more potential.
Any competition plan, including one that uses the exchanges, suers the
same basic problems as state competition, however. The listing decisions
remain under the control of management, which has a self-interest in suboptimal disclosure and suboptimal fraud protection. The exchanges existed
before the Securities Act, but they displayed little sign of competing
eciently. As discussed in Chapter 4, before 1933, disclosures were minimal
and fraud enforcement was spotty. When the great crooks of the 1920s,
such as Ivar The Match King Krueger and Samuel Insull, needed to do
so, they simply deed the exchange rules without any serious consequence.
Exchanges will always be hard-pressed to enforce their rules against the
very people who make the decision where to list. Former SEC chairman,
Harvey Pitt, whose outlook was generally antiregulatory, noted that in such
a system exchanges would not raise listing standards out of a fear that to
do so would give the other a competitive advantage.50 Historically, competitive pressures have caused the exchanges to jettison stringent listing
requirements whenever they threatened the exchanges prosperity. In 2006,
the Securities Industry Association proposed overhauling the separate regulatory rules of the exchanges in favor of a uniform set of self-regulatory
standards for all, an action that does not suggest the promise of exchange
competition.51
Even if exchanges had the will to enforce their rules, they lack the mechanism. They lack the force of law. Romano has observed that government
regulation does . . . oer some decided benets over stock exchange regulation: a more eective mechanism of private dispute resolution for securities suits against issuers, and a public enforcement system, should the
deterrent eect of criminal prosecution for securities law violations be a necessary complement to civil liability.52 Exchanges have only a few remedies
and enforcement tools at their disposal even if they wanted to punish
disclosure violations or stop fraud by listing companies.53 Lacking a
208
mechanism for shareholder class actions, exchange-based regulation would

be a poor mechanism for resolving disputes.54
Exchange competition also has transaction cost problems. Investors
might readily familiarize themselves with the protections oered by a given
exchange but would have to conne their investments to companies listed
on that exchange. If the investors desired to invest in companies on another
exchange, that would require additional transaction costs. If companies
could readily swap exchanges, investors would be forced either to sell or
undertake those costs. Indeed, a truly competitive exchange market would
probably involve a great deal of company switching and thus investors
would have to choose between a known fraud protection system or the
companies in which they wish to invest. If companies could not readily
switch exchanges, then if exchanges really did compete by changing legal
regimes any benet to shareholders would be minimal because they would
be locked into the jurisdiction their rm rst chose even if it were not the
most ecient. Finally, all of the behavioral issues involving state competitive regulation apply to exchange regulation as well. For all these reasons,
competitive regulation by exchanges would produce less disclosure and less
eective fraud protection at a higher cost.
A third version of regulatory competition in securities law counts not on
states or stock exchanges, but upon other nations to provide securities law
regimes. Under such a plan, a Delaware corporation headquartered in
California could choose to have transactions in its securities governed by
the laws of France, Thailand, or Bolivia. Needless to say, all the complications noted above in terms of transaction costs and behavioral considerations would be multiplied under such a system. Furthermore, the best
evidence indicates that the fees that might be generated by providing securities law would be so minimal that they would not interest the governments
of the worlds nations that could realistically provide the machinery for
meaningful securities regulation.55 For these reasons and many others,56
regulatory competition to provide securities law has not been taken seriously and should not be.
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
Perhaps the greatest current controversy in securities law (and corporate
law) involves the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (known colloquially as SOX). In
response to several huge corporate scandals (Enron, WorldCom, Tyco,
Adelphia, and so on) Congress passed SOX in 2002. While America has a
rich history of corporate scandals, the spate of corporate disasters that
prompted the Acts passage was remarkable for its magnitude. This law
209
made several signicant changes in US securities regulation. Perhaps the

best known of the new rules was a requirement in section 302 that corporate executives certify their nancial statements as accurate. The requirement was designed to prevent ocers from disclaiming awareness of false
disclosures, which often was a central element in their defense, most notoriously in the case of Bernard Ebbers, the WorldCom chief executive
ocer. The law also required some additional disclosure requirements, such
as faster disclosures of material changes in corporate nancial condition (a
change, by the way, that empirical studies indicate seems to have worked).57
Another important aspect of SOX involved the section 404 requirements
for internal nancial controls, the procedures used by corporations to
ensure the accuracy of nancial data reported to outside auditors and to
protect against fraudulent reports. Ocers were also required to certify that
they had designed internal controls to ensure the accuracy of this information and produce an internal control report as part of each annual
ling with the SEC.
The law created the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board
(PCAOB) to establish rules governing auditing and to regulate rms auditing public companies in America. The law also strengthened insider trading
regulation and increased the penalties imposed for legal violations.
Although it is conceivable that the costs will outweigh the benets, all these
provisions should serve to strengthen the disclosure requirements of securities law, and should therefore benet the securities markets which thrive
when bountiful, accurate information ows. In addition, Chapter 3
explained how behavioral psychology shows that such requirements are
vital to optimal corporate monitoring.
In addition to these modications of federal securities law, the new
statute placed restrictions on substantive corporate governance that went
well beyond existing state law requirements. The most signicant of
these requires that board audit committees be comprised entirely of outside
independent directors,58 expands the powers of board audit committees,
prohibits corporations from purchasing most nonauditing services from
their outside auditors,59 forces certain ocers to disgorge their bonus compensation in the event of a material restatement of the companys nancial
reports,60 and prohibits corporate loans to ocers.61
Although the main purpose of these provisions was to improve the reliability of information reported under federal securities laws, some complained that they represented a partial nationalization of certain corporate
law principles. The federal securities laws have historically focused on
corporate disclosure and securities fraud. The SEC has generally ceded to
the states jurisdiction over matters of corporate structure or internal obligations. However, the line between corporate law on the one hand and
210
securities law on the other hand is exceedingly murky. Various aspects of

federal securities law, such as those dealing with the proxy system and
insider trading, have long directly impacted corporate governance.
In passing SOX, Congress determined that the existing state corporate
rules enabled the cheating of investors (the agency problem) and that disclosure of corporate practices was insucient to provide protection for
them. Thus, the new law was actually a blend of securities law and corporate law. During the last 70 years or so an equilibrium has evolved such that
[w]hen a problem with national market implications arises, all parties
expect the national system to address it.62 Just as Hurricane Katrina
demanded primarily a federal response, so did the Enron-era scandals. For
Congress to sit on the sidelines because corporate board composition has
traditionally been a concern of state law would have been comparable to
FEMA turning its back on the survivors in the Superdome.
Law and economics scholars have harshly criticized much of SarbanesOxley, claiming that the Act imposed inecient requirements upon business. Much of the criticism of the Act has gone to the costs of compliance,
which can be quite high. The primary source of these costs has been the
new internal controls requirements. Some companies already had modern
and ecient internal nancial controls and their costs of compliance with
SOX section 404 have been minimal. For other companies, though, compliance costs have been substantial.
SOX has clearly necessitated additional corporate spending on auditing,
especially through its internal controls provision. A survey by Financial
Executives International found that the cost of the internal controls compliance alone averaged US$4.36 million per company. Another study estimated average cost of US$3.5 million per company.63 Another report
estimated initial annual compliance costs of SOX at US$6.1 billion.64
Litigation costs have also increased, as reected in insurance premiums, but
this might actually reect a net benet of the Act, given the evidence on the
economic eects of private enforcement of securities law.65 Where there is
greater litigation risk, rms tend to release both good news and bad news
earlier and with more precision.66
Some of the greater cost estimates for SOX compliance may prove exaggerated, because they involve one-time, rather than annualized, expenses.
The Association of Finance Professionals estimated that costs would
decline by 40 percent in just the second year of compliance.67 A recent
survey of practicing internal auditors found signicant benets stemming
from improved internal nancial controls and an expectation that costs
would decrease as soon as eective controls are in place.68 Once companies
have brought their internal controls up to par, continuing costs will be
much lower. Nonetheless, it is clear that SOX compliance costs have been
211
high, much higher than the SEC had predicted. Current Commission
eorts have sent a message that they will take a reasonable approach to
assessing compliance to hold down costs.
Perhaps the greatest concern about SOX is the indirect cost associated
with regulatory direction of business decisionmaking and associated
ineciencies. One widely publicized study examined the market reactions
to legislative events during the passage of the statute and concluded that
SOX resulted in a loss of US$1.4 trillion in total market value.69 While this
would be a profound negative eect, it reected only the markets anticipation of SOX regulations and their eects, not the actual practice under the
law. In addition, a dierent study used the same methodology of examining market reactions to SOX and reached exactly opposite conclusions. It
found negative market eects while the application of the law was uncertain but signicantly positive market eects once the precise obligations of
those terms reached their nal form, indicating that investors expected the
Act to have a net benecial eect on the market.70 Another study found that
SOX had a positive and statistically signicant eect on the value of large
companies, but not small ones,71 while yet another indicated that its
benets exceeded its compliance costs.72
The contradictory event studies associated with enactment and implementation do not provide denitive guidance on the economic eect of
SOX but suggest that its eect may well have been benecial. The performance of the American stock market in the wake of the statutes passage
indicates that it was successful in restoring the condence of American
investors, which had been at a post-9/11 low. Empirical research indicates
that SOX restored investor condence in the markets and restored liquidity that had been greatly reduced by Enron-era scandals.73 Another postSOX study found that investors value information about internal controls
and that small investors beneted the most from disclosure of the information.74 A survey of public company directors found that more than 60
percent believed that SOX had been positive for their companies.75
A major concern about SOX has been the fear that its costly requirements may promote going private or going dark (reducing the number
of public shareholders below a certain threshold). If the costs of compliance were great, some companies might be expected to give up their publicly traded status and avoid those costs. There is evidence that this
occurred, with an increase in going-private transactions following SOX.
The increase was especially pronounced among smaller companies with
relatively higher compliance costs.76 This going private trend would be
evidence of a negative eect of SOX, though other research suggests that
the immediate increase in going-private transactions was unrelated to
the statute.77
212
Other relevant research involves the eect of SOX on cross-listing behavior of foreign companies. A decrease in cross-listing would suggest that the
additional compliance costs outweighed the bonding eects of this practice. Again, the evidence is conicting. One study found that passage of the
Act had a signicant positive value on cross-listing companies, in nations
with eective judiciaries.78 A more recent study of the eects of the Act
after a short time found that stocks of cross-listed companies declined
signicantly as compared to comparable companies in response to SOX.79
This is probably the best evidence questioning SOX as a whole, but it did
not address the eect of individual changes made by the statute. There is
thus some evidence of a negative eect of SOX in the going-private and
cross-listing evidence, but the case is not yet a conclusive one.
The evidence regarding SOXs most controversial provisions, those
dealing with internal nancial controls, especially section 404, is at this
stage quite mixed. The debate over whether the benets of these provisions
outweigh the costs cannot currently be settled. Indeed, it may never be
settled for the simple reason that although the costs of SOX in this regard
are largely measurable, measuring the benets is somewhat more elusive.
The primary benets of more eective internal nancial controls will relate
to the mismanagement, earnings management, frauds, and other crimes
that will not occur. It is easy to measure the cost of installing a metal detector in an airport, but it is impossible to determine how many attempted
hijackings or bombings its installation averted. The same is true with
Sarbanes-Oxleys internal control provisions.
It is worth remembering that shareholder losses in Enron-era scandals
totaled well over US$200 billion. The US$25 billion loss involving Enron
alone will substantially outweigh even the most exaggerated estimates of
total SOX implementation costs.80 If SOX could indeed prevent or minimize the nancial consequences of such scandals, it would have considerable benet. The internal control rules were a sensible approach to
preventing a reoccurrence of the Enron-era scandals, for empirical evidence
indicates that before SOX was passed, rms with poor internal controls
tended to have more restatements of their nancial statements and other
disclosure problems than did other rms.81 Firms with weak internal controls also tend to engage in more earnings management.82
Studies of the actual impact of SOXs internal control provisions are
somewhat encouraging. One study indicates that SOXs internal control
provisions are leading managers to report nancial results more conservatively.83 Another study found that since SOX was passed rms discovering
problems with their internal controls have tended to have poorer quality
disclosures than other rms, indicating that sections 302 and 404 of SOX
are appropriately helping identify the drivers of poor quality nancial
213
reporting and that overall nancial reporting quality should improve as

SOX kicks in.84 An examination of market responses to internal control
reports demonstrated that they provided valuable information to
investors.85 Another study found that investors value information about
internal controls and that small investors have beneted most from the disclosure of this information.86
Professor Romano reviewed the empirical studies on the eect of the corporate certication requirement. These studies were inconsistent, with one
showing no market eect from an untimely certication and the other
showing that for some issuers (bank holding companies), the certication
provided new, and positive, information to the market.87 In addition to
the inconsistent results, the information available to conduct these studies
was quite limited, and she appropriately cautioned against drawing any
generalizations from their ndings.
Recent research on the certication requirement is also somewhat more
positive than portrayed previously by Romano. A study on the certication
requirements of SOX not discussed by Romano found that investors
responded favorably to certication events, to a degree that was both statistically and substantively signicant.88 Another found that certication
narrowed bid-ask spreads and added valuable information and liquidity to
capital markets.89 Still a third additional study conrmed that certications
provided assurance to investors in certifying companies, as reected in a
higher share price for the certifying company.90 Certication of controls
under section 302, combined with the audits of internal controls required
under section 404, combined to provide investors with much more timely
information about internal control systems than had previously been available and market reaction to the information indicated that investors found
it useful.91 The available nancial empirical evidence appears to provide
strong support for the benets of the SOX certication requirement.
The internal control requirements of SOX may also have some spino
eects. For example, they are leading to the uncovering of more corporate
violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), which prohibits
overseas bribes to gain business. FCPA prosecutions are up signicantly, in
substantial part due to corporations voluntarily self-reporting their newly
discovered violations.92 While there is no legal obligation to so report, companies are doing so out of a sense of responsibility instilled by SOXs
demanding standards or, perhaps, in hopes of ensuring that they receive
lighter punishment.
Professor Romanos discussion of the new requirements was part of
perhaps the most comprehensive critical analysis of SOX that has been
published. Romanos primary focus, however, was on the corporate governance requirements rather than the securities law changes.93 She began by
214
examining the political economy of the adoption of SOX. This included an

intricate study of the procedure by which the law was passed and noted the
Congressional disregard of evidence questioning the value of the new
statutory mandates. She concluded that the law was a frantic overreaction
to a perceived crisis, driven in signicant part by entities that stood to
benet from enactment.
In addition to her procedural objections to how the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
was enacted, Romano addressed empirical research regarding some of the
corporate governance problems that SOX addresses. She began with director independence requirements and was able to reference a substantial
research literature on the eect of independent directors in corporate governance and some research on the eect of independent directors on audit
committees. She identied 16 studies that considered the latter question, a
majority of which found no eect of this independence.94 On the provision
of nonaudit services, 19 of the 25 studies she reviewed found no connection
between such acts and audit quality, while the other studies were not conclusive.95 There was a general absence of empirical research on the ocer
loan prohibitions of SOX. This review, though, relied on the eect on corporate performance as reported by the company, not on the accuracy of
nancial reporting.
Considerable research shows that director independence improves
nancial reporting. Firms with more independent directors tend to have
less earnings management,96 fewer nancial restatements,97 and less corporate fraud.98 Firms with a higher percentage of independent directors on
their audit committees also tend to have less earnings management,99 fewer
nancial restatements,100 and less corporate fraud.101 SOXs provisions are
consistent with a large body of empirical literature to this eect.
Of course, SOX required that all members of the audit committee should
be independent, and there is also evidence supporting the ecacy of that
requirement. Goodwin and Yeo found that audit committees made up of
all independent directors were more active in monitoring than were audit
committees with some inside directors.102 Bedard and colleagues found that
audit committees composed solely of independent directors were correlated with less earnings management.103 McMullen and Raghundun found
that audit committees with all independent directors were less likely to
restate their earnings and less likely to get into trouble with the SEC.104
Finally, SOXs requirement of at least one nancial expert on the audit
committee is also strongly supported in the empirical literature. Felo and
colleagues found that having a nancial expert on the audit committee
was correlated to higher quality nancial reporting.105 Chtourou and
colleagues found that having a nancial expert on the audit committee
reduced earnings management.106 Abbott and colleagues found that audit
215
committees without nancial experts as members were more likely to be

associated with restatements of nancial statements.107 And Krishnan
found that audit committees with nancial experts as members were less
likely to have internal control problems.108
Most of the research referenced by Romano involved studies of relevant
corporate practices before SOX was passed. On the other hand, research on
the actual eect of the law has been somewhat more positive. Some of this
research pertaining specically to internal nancial controls and ocer
certication was referenced above. Additionally, one study of earnings
report manipulation (earnings management) found that managers had
engaged in opportunistic behavior to increase their stock option values
prior to SOXs passage and that there was a signicant decline in earnings
management after the passage of SOX.109 This enhanced disclosure accuracy was surely of important benet to markets. While it is still soon after
passage, the preliminary research on the market eects of SOX demonstrates some clear benets from reducing ocer manipulation of the
agency problem and better informing investors about corporate value.
The potential virtue of the Sarbanes-Oxley requirements is further
conrmed by an interesting survey of corporate directors that took place
in early 2002, before SOX was passed. The directors consistently favored
more monitoring than was their practice. For example, 71 percent of the
directors concluded that boards should hold executive sessions without the
presence of the chief executive ocer, but only 45 percent of the board
actually did so.110 Since SOX was passed, most of these desirable practices
have increased. For example, the percentage of boards holding sessions
without the CEO present has skyrocketed.111 The Conference Board, an
association of major US companies, also proposed reforms at about the
time SOX was being implemented, and it basically supported the SOX legislation. This information surely provides more evidence of the agency
problems that require substantial government regulation. Other indirect
support for the value of Sarbanes-Oxley comes from the tendency of other
developed nations to adopt similar requirements.112
Our theoretical defense of securities law can be used to justify only a
portion of SOX. The theoretical and empirical analysis of law and corporate nance demonstrates the substantial merit of traditional securities disclosure requirements but is much weaker in showing a benet from
regulation of corporate governance practices (the focus of Romanos critique). There is certainly reason to question the value of the latter category
of requirements. The main focus of criticism of SOX has involved the internal controls provisions, which should be benecial to markets in the long
term. The costs of these provisions may be excessive for small companies,
though, and regulators are currently considering ameliorating the burden
216
for smaller companies. SOX undoubtedly could benet from some tailoring that may relax some requirements, but such adjustments should be
grounded in the empirical evidence about the eects of the law and account
for the demonstrated benets of securities regulation for markets.
CONCLUSION
While the verdict is surely out for any particular change in US securities law,
including the particular changes of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, this analysis
suggests that we should be wary of making deregulatory changes as to any
basic matters. The case for many proposed deregulatory reforms fails to
appreciate the value of the law. The reform proposals are all animated by a
devotion to private orderingallowing issuers and investors to dene the
scope of their obligations. Such private ordering is fundamental to the
value of free markets but should not be worshipped so religiously. Proper
legal structures not only do not hinder such private ordering, they are necessary for it to work eciently.
Among the legal structures that facilitate markets is uniform, mandatory
disclosure, and meaningful protection against securities fraud. Such a
system has classical economic benets by sparing investors the need to
undertake extensive transaction costs or substantial risks. It has behavioral
economic benets by giving investors some comfort that they will not
readily be defrauded and lack any remedy. By penalizing disclosure failures
and fraud, the system deters their commission, to some degree, making the
markets more welcoming and economically ecient. These claims are
amply conrmed by the empirical evidence, in various contexts such as
cross-country research and historical analyses. The empirical studies show
that, whatever the benets of the privatizing reforms, their costs to equity
markets are greater.
The general benets of securities regulation do not justify any and every
new requirement. But the prevailing system of US securities regulation is
working very well and has produced thriving markets. The corporate scandals that inspired SOX demonstrate that our system is awed but suggest
that past regulation may have been too weak rather than too strong.
Moreover, despite that fraud, the US economy and stock market have performed well both on an absolute basis and relative to other countries over
recent decades.113 The success story of US securities law has made it a
model for regulatory reforms in virtually all other developed nations.114
Given the demonstrable benets of securities regulation, reformers therefore should bear the burden of proving the value of any major proposed
modications to that system. This proof must at minimum involve grap-
217
pling with the transaction cost/network eect benets of uniform fraud protection rules, as well as some consideration of the behavioral factors
inuencing human decisionmaking. It should also draw on empirical evidence about the actual eect of the proposed reform. The advocates of fundamental reform in US securities laws have not even come close to meeting
those logical burdens for most of their proposed changes.
NOTES
1. Richard H. McAdams, An Attitudinal Theory of Expressive Law, 79 OR. L. REV. 339,
389 (2000).
2. See Alan Strudler & Eric W. Orts, Moral Principle in the Law of Insider Trading, 78 TEX.
L. REV. 375 (1999).
3. Henry G. Manne, INSIDER TRADING AND THE STOCK MARKET (1966).
4. Id. at 116.
5. See Dennis W. Carlton & Daniel R. Fischel, The Regulation of Insider Trading, 35 STAN.
L. REV. 857 (1983).
6. See Harold Demsetz, Corporate Control, Insider Trading and Rates of Return, 76 AM.
ECON. REV. 313 (1986).
7. Kimberly D. Krawiec, Privatizing Outsider Trading, 41 VA. J. INTL L. 693 (2001).
8. 401 F.2d 833 (2d Cir. 1968).
9. See Lawrence M. Ausubel, Insider Trading in a Rational Expectations Economy, 80 AM.
ECON. REV. 1022 (1990).
10. United States v. OHagan, 521 U.S. 642 (1997).
11. S.C. Udpa, Insider Trading and the Information Content of Earnings, 23 J. BUS. FIN. &
ACCOUNTING 1069 (1996).
12. See Robert J. Haft, The Eect of Insider Trading Rules on the Internal Eciency of the
Large Corporation, 80 MICH. L. REV. 1051 (1982).
13. Lucian Bebchuk & Jesse Fried, PAY WITHOUT PERFORMANCE THE UNFULFILLED PROMISE OF EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION (2004).
14. Qiang Cheng & Terry D. Wareld, Equity Incentives and Earnings Management
(November 2004), available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=457840.
15. Jap Efendi, Anup Srivastava, & Edward P. Swanson, Why Do Corporate Managers
Misstate Financial Statements? The Role of In-the-Money Options and Other Incentives
(September 4, 2005), available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=547922.
16. James S. Ang. & Don. R. Cox, Controlling the Agency Cost of Insider Trading, 10 J. FIN.
& STRATEGIC DECISIONS 15 (1997).
17. See Herbert Gintis, et al., Moral Sentiments and Material Interests: Origins, Evidence,
and Consequences, in MORAL SENTIMENTS AND MATERIAL INTERESTS:
THE FOUNDATIONS OF COOPERATION IN ECONOMIC LIFE 8 (Herbert
Gintis, et al eds. 2005).
18. See Robert A. Prentice & Jonathan J. Koehler, A Normality Bias in Legal Decision
Making, 88 CORNELL L. REV. 583, 60612 (2003).
19. Robert A. Prentice, Contract-Based Defenses in Securities Fraud Litigation: A Behavioral
Analysis, U. ILL. L. REV. 337, 376 (2003).
20. Laura Nyantung Beny, Do Insider Trading Laws Matter? Some Preliminary Comparative
Evidence, 7 AM. LAW & ECON REV. 144 (2005).
21. Utpal Bhattacharya & Hazem Daouk, The World Price of Insider Trading, 57 J. FIN. 75
(2002).
22. Pankav Jain, Institutional Design and Liquidity at Stock Exchanges Around the World
(January 2002).
218
23. Robert M. Bushman, Joseph D. Piotroski, & Abbie J. Smith, Insider Trading Restrictions
and Analysts Incentives to Follow Firms, 60 J. FIN. 35 (2005).
24. Julan Du & Shang-Jin Wei, Does Insider Trading Raise Market Volatility, 114 ECON. J.
916 (2004).
25. Tomasz P. Wisniewski, Reexamination of the Link Between Insider Trading and Price
Eciency, 28 ECON. SYSTEMS 209 (2004), available at www.sciencedirect.com/
science/article/B6W8Y-4CVX0YT-1/2/01c276b6edf476dfba6fe0ec26f321e9.
26. Carr v. CIGNA Securities, Inc., 95 F.3d 544 (7th Cir. 1996).
27. William N. Landes & Richard A. Posner, THE ECONOMIC STRUCTURE OF TORT
LAW 28081 (1987).
28. Lee Ross, et al., The False Consensus Eect: An Egocentric Bias in Social Perception
and Attribution Processes, 17 J. EXPERIMENTAL SOC. PSYCHOL. 279 (1977).
29. Joseph W. Rand, The Demeanor Gap: Race, Lie Detection, and the Jury, 33 CONN.
L.REV. 1, 3 (2000).
30. Stephen Choi, Regulating Investors Not Issuers: A Market-Based Proposal, 88 CAL. L.
REV. 279 (2000).
31. See Merle Erickson, Michelle Hanlon, Michelle, & Edward L. Maydew, Is There a Link
Between Executive Compensation and Accounting Fraud? (February 24, 2004), available
at http://ssrn.com/abstract=509505.
32. Robert A. Prentice, Chicago Man, K-T Man, and the Future of Behavioral Law and
Economics, 56 VAND. L. REV. 1663 (2003).
33. See Gary Belsky & Thomas Gilovich, WHY SMART PEOPLE MAKE BIG MONEY
MISTAKESAND HOW TO CORRECT THEM 152 (1999).
34. James A. Fanto, Were All Capitalists Now: The Importance, Nature, Provision and
Regulation of Investor Education, 49 CASE W. RES. L. REV. 105, 135 (1998).
35. Robert A. Prentice, Whither Securities Regulation? Some Behavioral Observations
Regarding Proposals for its Future, 51 DUKE L.J. 1397 (2002).
36. Matthew Josephson, Infrequent Corporation Reports Keep Investors in Dark, 36 MAG.
OF WALL ST. 302, 374 (June 20, 1925).
37. Bernard Black, The Legal and Institutional Preconditions for Strong Securities Markets,
48 UCLA L. REV. 781, 783 (2001).
38. Bernard S. Black, Information Asymmetry, the Internet, and Securities Oerings, 2
J. SMALL & EMERGING BUS. L. 91, 9293 (1998).
39. Roberta Romano, THE ADVANTAGE OF COMPETITIVE FEDERALISM FOR
SECURITIES REGULATION (2002).
40. Gillian K. Hadeld & Eric L. Talley, On Public Versus Private Provision of Corporate
Law 11, University of Southern California Law & Economics Research Paper No.
04118 (2004).
41. See e.g., William L. Cary, Federalism and Corporate Law: Reections upon Delaware, 83
YALE L.J. 663 (1974).
42. David S. Ruder, Reconciling U.S. Disclosure Policy with International Accounting and
Disclosure Standards, 17 NW. J. INTL L. & BUS. 1, 10 (1996).
43. See Marcel Kahan & Ehud Kamar, The Myth of State Competition in Corporate Law,
55 STAN. L. REV. 679, 68788 (2002).
44. Id. at 70124.
45. Romano, supra note 39, at 21.
46. Robert Daines, The Incorporation Choices of IPO Firms, 77 N.Y.U. L. REV. 1559, 1562
(2002).
47. Klause Heine & Wolfgang Kerber, European Corporate Laws, Regulatory Competition
and Path Dependence, 13 EUROPEAN J. LAW ECON. 47 (2002).
48. Eric Pan, Harmonization of U.S.EU Securities Regulation: The Case for a Single
European Securities Regulator, LAW & POLICY IN INTL BUS (Winter 2003).
49. Mahoney and Pritchard have made the most persuasive cases for an increased role for
securities exchanges in securities. Paul G. Mahoney, The Exchange as Regulator, 83 VA.
L. REV. 1453 (1997); Adam C. Pritchard, Markets as Monitors: A Proposal to Replace
Class Actions with Exchanges as Securities Fraud Enforcers, 85 VA. L. REV. 925 (1999).
219
50. Albert B. Crenshaw, SEC to Toughen Rule on Option Plans, WASHINGTON POST,
December 20, 2001, at E1.
51. Jenny Anderson, Should the Securities Industry Have Just One Set of Rules?, N.Y.
TIMES, January 25, 2006, at C3.
52. Romano, supra note 39, at 145.
53. Edward Rock, Securities Regulation as Lobster Trap: A Credible Commitment Theory of
Mandatory Disclosure, 23 CARDOZO L. REV. 695, 697 (2002) (noting numerous
limitations of the NYSE and other exchanges, especially an inability to impose criminal
sentences).
54. Roberta Romano, Empowering Investors: A Market Approach to Securities Regulation,
107 YALE L.J. 2359 (1998).
55. Frederick Tung, Lost in Translation: From U.S. Corporate Charter Competition to Issuer
Choice in International Securities Regulation, 39 GA. L. REV. 525, 59091 (2005).
56. One of the authors has addressed these matters in some detail. Robert A. Prentice,
Regulatory Competition in Securities Law: A Dream (that Should Be) Deferred, 66 OHIO
ST. L.J. 1155 (2005).
57. Lisa Bryant-Kutcher, Emma Yan Peng, & Kristina Zvinakis, Timeliness and Quality of
10-K Filings: The Impact of the Accelerated Filing Deadline (June 3, 2005). These
authors found that the quality of lings did not diminish after the SEC shortened the
deadline for ling 10-Ks from 90 days to 75 days, as critics had predicted. Therefore,
under the new rules, investors were receiving just as reliable information in a timelier
fashion.
58. Independent directors are those who are not ocers, nor controlled by ocers or controlling corporate shareholders.
59. Much of the blame in the major corporate scandals provoking SOX was placed at the
feet of outside auditors, who approved fraudulent nancial statements. The argument
was that the auditors did so in order to preserve their more lucrative income received
from providing consulting and other services to the very companies that they were
auditing.
60. Sarbanes-Oxley Act, S. 304.
61. Id S. 402.
62. See William W. Bratton & Joseph A. McCahery, The Equilibrium Content of Corporate
Federalism 12 (October 2004), ECGI Law Working Paper 23/2004, available at
http//ssrn.com/abstract=606481.
63. William J. Carney, The Costs of Being Public After Sarbanes-Oxley: The Irony of Going
Private 55 EMORY L.J. 141 (2006).
64. Larry E. Ribstein, Sarbanes-Oxley after Three Years, University of Illinois Law &
Economics Research Papter No. LE05016, 378 (2005).
65. Id. at 6.
66. Stephen Brown, et al., Management Forecasts and Litigation Risk (April 2005), available
at http://ssrn.com/abstract=709161.
67. See www.afponline.org/pub/res/news/ns_20051229_cs.html.
68. Larry E. Rittenberg & Patricia K. Miller, Sarbanes-Oxley Section 404 Work: Looking at
the Benets, Institute of Internal Auditors. Research Foundation (November 9, 2005),
available at www.theiia.org/?doc_id=5161.
69. Ivy Xiying Zhang, Economic Consequences of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (February
2005).
70. Haidan Li, Morton Pincus, & Sonja O. Rego, Market Reaction to Events Surrounding the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (January 11, 2006).
71. Vidhi Chhaochharia & Yaniv Grinstein, Corporate Governance and Firm Value : The
Impact of the 2002 Governance Rules (June 2004).
72. Zabihollah Rezaee & Pankaj K. Jain, The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and Security
Market Behavior: Early Evidence (May 2005).
73. Pankaj K. Jain, Jang-Chul Kim, & Zabihollah Rezaee, The Eect of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 on Market Liquidity (March 2004), available at http://ssrn.com/
abstract=488142.
220
74. Gus De Franco, Yuyan Guan, & Hai Lu, The Wealth Change and Redistribution Eects
of Sarbanes-Oxley Internal Control Disclosures (April 17, 2005), available at
http://ssrn.com/abstract=706701.
75. Cynthia Harrington, The Value Proposition, J. ACCOUNTANCY, 77 (September 2005).
76. Stanley B. Block, The Latest Movement to Going Private: An Empirical Study, 14 J.
APPLIED FIN. 36 (2004).
77. Peter C. Hsu, Going Private : A Response to an Increased Regulatory Burden?, UCLA
School of Law-Econ. Research Paper No. 0416 (May 2004).
78. Philip G. Berger, Feng Li, & M.H. Franco Wong, The Impact of Sarbanes-Oxley on
Foreign Private Issuers (October 21, 2004).
79. Kate Litvak, The Eect of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act on Non-US Companies Cross-Listed
in the U.S., U. of Texas Law and Econ. Research Paper No. 55 (December 22, 2005).
80. Pamela MacLean, SOX inspires Backlashand Benets, NATL L.J. (April 22, 2005).
81. Hollis Ashbaugh-Skaife, Daniel W. Collins, & William R. Kinney, Jr., The Discovery and
Consequences of Internal Control Deciencies Prior to SOX-Mandated Audits,
McCombs Working Paper No. ACC-0205 (September 15, 2005), available at
82. Kam C. Chan, Barbara R. Farrell, & Picheng Lee, Earnings Management and ReturnEarnings Association of Firms Reporting Material Internal Control Weaknesses Under
Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (June 2005), available at http://papers.ssrn.
com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=744806.
83. Gerald J. Lobo & Jian Zhou, Did Conservatism in Financial Reporting Increase after the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act? Initial Evidence, 20 ACCT. HORIZONS 57 (2006).
84. Jerey T. Doyle, Ge Weili, Ge, & Sarah E. McVay, Accruals Quality and Internal Control
over Financial Reporting, AAA 2006 Financial Accounting and Reporting Section
(FARS) Meeting Paper (August 2005), available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=789985.
85. Jacqueline S. Hammersley, Linda A. Myers, & Catherine Shakespeare, Market
Reactions to the Disclosure of Internal Control Weaknesses and to the Characteristics
of those Weaknesses under Section 302 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002
(October 2005).
86. Gus De Franco, Yuyan Guan, and Hai Lu, The Wealth Change and Redistribution Eects
of Sarbanes-Oxley Internal Control Disclosures (April 17, 2005) available at
87. See Roberta Romano, The Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the Making of Quack Corporate
Governance, 114 YALE L.J. 1521, 1542 (2005).
88. See Paul A. Grin & David H. Lont, Taking the Oath: Investor Response to SEC
Certication Under Sarbanes-Oxley (April 30, 2004).
89. Pankav K. Jain, Jang-Chul Kim, & Zabihollah Rezaee, Have the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 and the CEO Certications Made the Market Participants More Informed (January
2003).
90. Hsihui Chang, Jeng-Fang Chen, & Woody M. Liao, CEOs/CFOs Swearing by the
Numbers: Does It Impact Share Price of the Firm? (October 2003).
91. Hammersley, Myers, & Shakespeare, supra note 85.
92. Michael T. Burr, Corporations Caught in Rising Tide of FCPA Enforcement, CORPORATE LEGAL TIMES, November 2005, at 22.
93. See Romano, supra note 87.
94. Id. at 153032.
95. Id. at 153536.
96. April Klein, Audit Committee, Board of Director Characteristics, and Earnings
Management, 33 J. ACCT. & ECON. 375 (2002).
97. Anup Agrawal & Sahiba Chadha, Corporate Governance and Accounting Scandals, 48 J.
L. & ECON. 371 (October. 2005).
98. Mark S. Beasley, An Empirical Analysis of the Relations Between the Board of Director
Composition and Financial Statement Fraud, 71 ACCT. REV. 443 (1996).
99. Sonda M.Chtourou, Jean Bedard, & Lucie Courteau, Corporate Governance and
Earnings Management (April 21, 2001) available at http://ssrn.com.abstract=275053.
221
100. Lawrence J. Abbott, Susan Parker, & Gary F. Peters, Audit Committee Characteristics
and Financial Misstatement: A Study of the Ecacy of Certain Blue Ribbon Committee
Recommendations, 23 AUDITING: A J. OF PRAC. & THEORY 69 (March 2004).
101. Mark S. Beasley, et al., Fraudulent Financial Reporting: Consideration of Industry Traits
and Corporate Governance Mechanisms, 14 ACCT. REV. 441 (2000).
102. Jennie Goodwin & Tech Yeow Yeo, Two Factors Aecting Internal Audit Independence
and Objectivity: Evidence from Singapore, 5 INTL J. AUDIT. 107, 116 (2001).
103. Jean Bedard, et al., The Eect of Audit Committee Expertise, Independence, and Activity
on Aggressive Earnings Management, 23 AUDITING: A J. OF PRAC. & THEORY 13
(September 2004).
104. Dorothy A. McMullen & K. Raghundan, Enhancing Audit Committee Eectiveness, 182
J. ACCTCY. 79 (August 1996).
105. Andrew J. Felo, et al., Audit Committee Characteristics and the Perceived Quality of
Financial Reporting: An Empirical Analysis (April 2003), available at http://ssrn.
com/abstract=401240.
106. Sonda M.Chtourou, Jean Bedard, & Lucie Courteau, Corporate Governance and
Earnings Management (April 21, 2001), available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=275053.
107. Lawrence J. Abbot, et al., Audit Committee Characteristics and Financial Misstatement:
A Study of the Ecacy of Certain Blue Ribbon Committee Recommendations, 23
AUDITING: A J. OF PRAC. & THEORY 69 (March 2004).
108. Jayanthi Krishnan, Audit Committee Quality and Internal Control: An Empirical
Analysis, 80 ACCT. REV. 649 (2005).
109. Daniel A. Cohen, Aiyesha Dey, & Thomas Z. Lys, Trends in Earnings Management and
Informativeness of Earnings Announcements in the Pre- and Post-Sarbanes Oxley Periods
(February 2005).
110. See Bengt Holmstrom & Steven N. Kaplan, The State of U.S. Corporate Governance:
Whats Right and Whats Wrong, NBER Working Paper No. 9613, 18 (April 2003).
111. See Lina Saigol, Fewer Willing to Take Director Risk, FIN. ANCIAL TIMES,
November 24, 2004, at 22.
112. See Robert A. Prentice, The Inevitability of a Strong SEC, 91 CORNELL L. REV. 775
(forthcoming) (describing the popularity of American-style securities regulation in
Asian and European nations).
113. Bengt Holmstrom & Steven N. Kaplan, The State of U.S. Corporate Governance: Whats
Right and Whats Wrong, NBER Working Paper No. 9613 (April 2003) at Table 1.
114. See Gerard Hertig, Convergence of Substantive Law and Enforcement, in CONVERGENCE AND PERSISTENCE IN CORPORATE GOVERNANCE 33, 53 (Jerey
N. Gordon & Mark J. Roe eds. 2004).
Index
Titles of publications and legal cases are in italics.
Abbott, L.J. 21415
accounting firms as intermediaries
412
acquisitions, effect of corporate and
securities law 61
affective trust 389, 58
Akerlof, G. 33
America
corporate law 2, 1215
disclosure rules 1347
fiduciary duty 124
fraud prevention 13941
insider trading regulation 1423
securities law 2, 1519
see also Sarbanes-Oxley Act;
Securities Act; Securities
Exchange Act
securities law controversies 190217
takeover regulation 1435
anchoring and adjustment
and auditor failure 88
and decisionmaking 76
appraisal rights, minority shareholders
126
Asch, S. 75
assumpsit 11112
audit committee and Sarbanes-Oxley
Act 214
auditing costs and Sarbanes-Oxley Act
210
auditing firms as intermediaries 412
auditor failure, behavioral reasons
878
availability heuristic, and
decisionmaking 74
Azfar, O. 155
Bainbridge, S.M. 956
bank lending and company financing 5
Barberis, N. 81
Barnards Act 133
Barro, R. 152
basic law 1012
analysis of associations 16670
and behavioral decision theory 829
development of 11016
economic effects 156, 186
and trust 2931
Bedard, J. 214
behavioral decision theory 7079
and competitive regulation 205
and contracting around fraud 198
and corporate disclosure 947
and corporate law 8993
and efficient market hypothesis
7982
and insider trading 195
and issuer deregulation 200201
and securities law 93101
and stockbrokers 934
Benartzi, S. 80
Benston, G. 60
Beny, L. 195
Berle, A.A. 123
Bernstein, L. 11
Bernstein, W. 129
Bhattacharya, U. 1956
Birth of Plenty: How the Prosperity of
the Modern World was Created
129
Black, B. 54, 2012
Blair, M.M. 9091, 118
Bogle, J. 87
bonding assets 1278
bounded rationality 712
bounded willpower 79
Bowling Alone 29
Bubble Act 119, 130, 1323
223
224
Index
bubbles 1313
business judgment rule 48, 93
business xenophobia 367
Butler, N. 117
capital, costs of, effect of laws 156
capital market development 13033
and disclosure 1338
and misrepresentation 13841
and takeovers 1437
Carr v. CIGNA Securities 197
cash/price variable and securities law
180
centralized control by managers 122
certification requirement, SarbanesOxley Act 213
China, takeover regulation 146
Choi, S. 100, 199201
Chtourou, S.M. 214
civil law countries
contract law development 112
fraud law 11415
securities law development 1378
class action fraud litigation 55, 140
Coase, R. 11314, 118
Coffee, J.C. 62
cognitive dissonance 723
and stockbroker behavior 94
common law 9
economic effects 153
fraud rules 545
common law nations
tort law development 11415
see also America; England
communalities, factor analysis 175
community-based transactions 367
Companies Act 134
Companies Clauses Consolidation Act
134
company financing 45
compensation of executives
and behavioral theory 912
effect of insider trading 193
competitive regulation 2028
private securities exchanges 2078
state securities regulation 2027
compliance costs
corporate and securities law 645

Sarbanes-Oxley Act 21011
confirmation bias 72
conformity bias 756
Conslick, J. 104
contract-intensive money (CIM) 158,
160
contract law
and behavioral decision theory
835
clarification function 45
development of 11112
and trust 3746
contracting around fraud 1969
contracts, relational 30
control
illusion of 74
managerial 122
corporate certification requirement,
corporate disclosure, see disclosure
corporate governance
effect of law 1834
quality and economic success 7
corporate law 8, 1215
and acquisitions 61
8993
bonding assets 1278
and capital markets 153, 155
costs 48, 645
development 11629
economics of 4651
effect on markets 187
and fiduciary duty 1920, 1235
and fraud law 1920
inefficiency 49
limited liability 12021
management control 122
and management monitoring 1234
and market capitalization 155
minority shareholders, protection of
1257
perpetuity of corporations 120
separate legal identity of
corporations 11819
state governance 2056
corporate law variables 160, 161
analysis 17072
Index
factor analysis 176
and World Bank financial variables
17071
corporate scandals 23, 867
corporations 11627
bonding assets 1278
development 11618
fiduciary duty of managers 1235
limited liability 12021
management control 122
minority shareholders 1257
perpetuity of existence 120
separate legal identity 11819
costs
of capital, effect of laws 156
of compliance, Sarbanes-Oxley Act
21011
compulsory corporate rules 48
corporate and securities law
compliance 645
credit-rating agencies 41
crime and contract enforcement 44
cross-country scaling of national legal
content 1589
cross-listing 613
effect of Sarbanes-Oxley Act 212
Daouk, H. 1956
Dartmouth College (case) 119
Davis, J. 110
deceit, see fraud
Dechow, P.M. 86
decisionmaking, see behavioral
decision theory
Delaware law 15, 51
and takeovers 145
Derry v. Peek 139
director independence and SarbanesOxley Act 214
disclosure 524
947
effect of regulation 60
regulation development 1338
variables, effect of law 1845
voluntary 534
disposition effect 81
Donaldson, T. 90
Drucker, P. 118
Dunfee, T.W. 90
225
East Asian economies, relationship

investing 35
Easterbrook, F.H. 39, 47, 49, 50, 54,
86, 87, 923
EC Public Offer Prospectus Directive
141
Economic Analysis of Law 46
economic growth
and financial development 57
and law 37, 154
and property rights 11314
economic value of law 2866
corporate law 4651
securities law 519
and trust 3146
efficient market hypothesis and
behavioral decision theory 8082
Ellickson, R. 11
emotions, effect on decisionmaking 73
empowering legal rules 89
endowment effect
and contract law 83
enforcement of securities law, effect on
market 1812
England
disclosure development 134
fraud prevention 139
securities regulation development
1313
see also United Kingdom
Enron 867
equity market financing 5
equity premiums 80
ethnicity and trust 367
ethnolinguistic fractionalization 1789
European Union
corporate law convergence 128
fraud provisions 141
takeover regulations 146
ex ante monitoring 3940
Exchange Act, see Securities Exchange
Act
executive compensation, see
compensation of executives
fairness and contract law 845
false consensus effect 745
226
Index

and fraud 99, 198
Farnsworth, E.A. 85
Felo, A.J. 214
Festinger, L. 72
fiduciary duty
and fraud law 1920
of managers 9091, 1235
see also fraud
financial development, effect on
economic growth 57
financial markets
effect of laws 154, 187
effects of legal variables 17682
effect of Sarbanes-Oxley Act 211
and social welfare 6
financial scandals 23, 867
financial variables 1623
financing company growth 45
Fischel, D.R. 39, 47, 49, 50, 54, 93
Fletcher v. Peck 119
Foley & Lardner 64
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA)
213
foundational law, economic effects 156,
186; see also basic law
foundational legal variables,
correlation 16770
framing bias, decisionmaking 76
France
corporate governance regulation 148
disclosure requirements 137
management supervision 124
shareholder voting rights 126
fraud and contracting 1969
fraud provisions
97101
development 11415
and fiduciary law 1920
and mandatory disclosure 54
and securities law 54, 13841
Germany
management monitoring 1234
Goodwin, J. 214
government
as monitoring intermediary 434
role in decisionmaking 1013
groupthink and decisionmaking 756
growth, see economic growth
Grubman, J. 40
Gulati, M. 100
habit heuristic and decisionmaking
78
Hadfield, G. 202
Havemeyer, H.O. 135
herding, and decisionmaking 76
history of law
basic law 11016
contract law 11112
corporate law 11629
property law 11214
securities regulation 234, 12947
tort law 11416
honesty of management, measurement
164
Hu, Chung 41
human capital variable 179
illusion of control
and fraud protection 99
inefficiency of corporate laws 49
information provision, private
intermediaries 42
insensitivity to information source
insider trading 1916
and Exchange Act 1718, 142
effect on markets 1956
legalization 1912
regulation development 1413
inspection rights, minority
shareholders 126
Institutional Shareholder Services
(ISS) 42
intellectual property rights 114
intermediaries, see private
intermediaries
intermediate agency problem, effect of
laws 1835
intermediate variables 1634, 1825
Index
internal financial controls and
investment
company financing 45
effect of Securities Act 5960
and trust 31
see also Prisoners Dilemma of
investment
investor irrationality 8082
issuer deregulation 199202
Japan
corporate law development 129
takeover regulations 146
Jensen, M.C. 80
Joint-Stock Companies Registration,
Incorporation and Regulation Act
134
judicial systems 1011
Kahneman, D. 71, 77
Kaplow, L. 4
King, R. 5
Klausner, M. 56
Korea, takeover regulations 146
Korobkin, R. 84
Kraakman, R.H. 79
Kreuger, I. 1356
Krishnan, J. 215
La Porta, R. 1534, 160
La Porta financial variables 162
La Porta scale of national legal
content 1589
Langevoort, D.C. 92
law
economic effects measurement
15288
and economic growth 37
effect on financial markets 154
history of, see history of law
and transactions 379
and trust 2946, 85
see also basic law; common law;
contract law; corporate law;
property law; securities law
Law, J. 131
legal identity, corporations 11819
legal origin 9
as basic law variable 1578
227
effect on financial development 154

legal rules 89
legal variables 15761
economic effects 17482
Levine, R. 56, 154
Levitt, A. 87
limited liability 1213, 478, 12021
limited liability companies (LLC) 489
Loewenstein, G. 88
loss aversion
and contract law 83
low probability events, effect on
decisionmaking 76
Macey, J. 41
Mahoney, P. 133
management
control, corporations 122
effects of insider trading 194
monitoring 1234
opportunism 47
managers, fiduciary duty 9091, 1235
mandatory disclosure, see disclosure
Manne, H. 191
Marini Report 148
Market for Lemons, The 33
market-mobilized capital 155
markets, see financial markets
McMullen, D.A. 214
Means, G.C. 123
memory limitations and auditor failure
87
mental accounting 778
Milgrom, P. 36
minority shareholder protection
1257
misrepresentation prevention 13841;
see also fraud
monitoring
of management 1234
of transactions, private
intermediaries 3944
myopic loss aversion 80
nationalization of securities fraud law
556
Nature of the Firm, The 118
network effects, enforcement system
coordination 56
228
Index
Neuer Markt 1378

New Institutional Economics 4
New York Stock Exchange (NYSE),
nonreliance clauses 197
North, D. 4, 110
Olson, M. 113
opportunism 36
of private intermediaries 4042
optimism, undue
oral communication salience, and
fraud 100
organized crime and contract
enforcement 44
Over the Counter Bulletin Board
(OTCBB) 58
overconfidence
Overend Gurney bank collapse 134
partnership law 1415
Partnoy, F. 41
Pasley v. Freeman 115
patent law development 114
perpetuity of existence, corporations
120
personal positivity bias and fraud 99
Pitt, H. 207
Posner, R. 467, 51, 89, 99, 197
post facto contract enforcement 44
post facto fraud enforcement 3940, 54
power allocation and corporate law 13
Prisoners Dilemma of investment 314
effect of law 379
private intermediaries
opportunism 4042
transaction monitoring 3944
private securities exchanges,
Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act (PSLRA) 15, 1617, 140
private transactions, effect of
probability assessment
and fraud 99
property law development 11214
property rights
and economic success 11314
as measure of foundational law 158
prospect theory and decisionmaking 77
PSLRA (Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act) 15, 1617, 140
psychology and decisionmaking, see
behavioral decision theory
public companies, costs 645
Public Company Accounting Oversight
Board (PCAOB) 209
public enforcement of securities laws
1812
Putnam, R. 29, 36
quality of management, measurement
164
racism in transactions 367
Raghundun, K. 214
Rao, P.K. 57
rational choice 223
rational ignorance 712
and fraud 989
reference dependent utility 77
regret aversion 73
regulation, competitive, see competitive
regulation
relational contracts 30
relational xenophobia of trust 367
relationship investing, East Asian
economies 35
religious culture, influence on law 156
representativeness heuristic, and
decisionmaking 74
reputational capital loss, Enron 867
reputational constraint, stockbrokers
934
restrictive legal rules 89
Ribstein, L.E. 52, 81, 99
Ridley, M. 30
right to sue, minority shareholders
1267
risky shift 76
Roberts, J. 36
Index
Roe, M. 1878
Romano, R. 202, 207, 21314
rule of law, factor analysis 175
Sale, H.A. 100
salience of oral communication, and
fraud 100
Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) 1819, 59,
92, 128, 1367, 20816
SEC, see Securities Exchange
Commission
SEC v. Texas Gulf Sulphur Co. 192
Securities Act 1516, 136
fraud provisions 140, 197
and return on investment 5960
Securities Exchange Act 1618, 1367
and mandatory disclosure 60
Securities Exchange Commission
(SEC) 2, 16, 1023, 182
securities law 8, 1519
America, see America, securities law
analysis of variables 1724
and acquisitions 61
93101
benefits 5963
costs 645
development 12947
economics of 5163
effect of public enforcement 1812
factor analysis 176, 180
and financial development 1534,
176, 18082, 186
government role 1013
and network externalities 57
studies 5963, 1534
valuation 187
variables 16061
Securities Litigation Uniform
Standards Act (SLUSA) 15,
1617
self-serving bias 72
separate legal identity, corporations
11819
shareholder protection 1257
effect on company value 153
229
Shavell, S. 4
Shleifer, A. 81
Simon, H. 72
Sloan, L. 136
Smith, A. 123
social norms and corporate disclosure
96
social welfare, effect of financial
markets 6
South Sea Bubble 132
SOX, see Sarbanes-Oxley Act
state law 910
securities regulation 6061, 2027
status quo bias
and contract law 834
and corporate disclosure 956
stock issuers, opportunism 40
stockbrokers and behavioral decision
theory 934
Stout, L.A. 90, 9091, 118
sunk cost effects and decisionmaking
78
sunk costs, private intermediaries
423
takeovers, regulation 1437
Talley, E. 202
Taylor, M. 2930
tender offer regulation, Williams Act
17
Thaler, R.H. 80
time delay traps and decisionmaking
789
tort law development 11416
transaction costs
and exchange competition 208
and law 22
transactions
effect of law 379
monitoring, private intermediaries
3944
and trust 289
trust
and basic law 2931
and commercial transactions 289,
845
and corporate governance 90
230
effect of law 3146, 85
and investment contracts 31
Tversky, A. 71, 77, 81
Index
Vishny, R. 81
voluntary disclosure 534
voting rights, minority shareholders
1256
United Kingdom
see also England
underground economy 11
undue optimism
USA, see America
Yeo, T.Y. 214
Vienot Report 148
Zervos, S. 56
Welle, E. 103
Williams Act 17, 59, 144
Williamson, O. 38
World Bank studies 1545
World Competitiveness Report (WCR)
159

Law & Corporate Finance

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Law & Corporate Finance

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Law & Corporate Finance

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Law and Corporate Finance

ELGAR FINANCIAL LAW

Law and Corporate

Frank B. Cross and Robert A. Prentice

ELGAR FINANCIAL LAW

Frank B. Cross and Robert A. Prentice, 2007

ISBN 978 1 84720 107 2

The role of law in corporate nance

Figures and tables

Prisoners dilemma of investment

Associations among legal foundational variables

To Indy and Kira

1. The role of the law in

Law and corporate nance

Central to this book are two more specialized bodies of lawcorporate

The role of law in corporate nance

LAW, FINANCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC

Law and corporate nance

The role of law in corporate nance

nancial resources in order to grow, to purchase new production equipment

Law and corporate nance

The role of law in corporate nance

THE STRUCTURAL LAW OF THE FIRM AND THE

Law and corporate nance

for equity investment, albeit sometimes with less eciency. Consequently,

The role of law in corporate nance

contract between sellers of securities and investors, or actually encourage

Law and corporate nance

among states is limited somewhat by the extraterritorial application of

The role of law in corporate nance

Law and corporate nance

The role of law in corporate nance

Law and corporate nance

opportunities of the corporation. The duty of care is to ensure that ocers

The role of law in corporate nance

Law and corporate nance

The role of law in corporate nance

Law and corporate nance

Section 16 of the Exchange Act presumes that ocers, directors, and

The role of law in corporate nance

selling, and forces ocers to forfeit performance-based bonuses and prots

Law and corporate nance

The role of law in corporate nance

approaches are aimed at combating dierent problems and, for plaintis,

Law and corporate nance

law, private parties may face considerable risk in transactions, which

The role of law in corporate nance

Law and corporate nance

The role of law in corporate nance

the legalization of insider trading on nonpublic information, so that

We can oer no conclusive answers to these controversies. Our nal chapter

See Hernando de Soto, THE MYSTERY OF CAPITAL (2000).

Law and corporate nance

The role of law in corporate nance

Thrainn Eggertsson, ECONOMIC BEHAVIOR AND INSTITUTIONS 317 (1990).

2. The economics of the law and

The economics of the law and corporate nance

THE BASIC LAW AND TRUST