Introduction

• The Lowell Milken Institute for Business Law and Policy at UCLA School of Law is now accepting applications for the Lowell Milken Institute Law Teaching Fellowship.

• This fellowship is a full-time, year-round, one or two academic-year position (approximately July 2012 through June 2013 or June 2014).  The position involves law teaching, legal and policy research and writing, preparing to go on the law teaching market, and assisting with organizing projects such as conferences and workshops, and teaching.  No degree will be offered as part of the Fellowship program.

Eligibility

• Fellowship candidates must hold a JD degree from an ABA accredited law school and be committed to a career of law teaching and scholarship in the field of  business law and policy.  Applicants should have demonstrated an outstanding aptitude for independent legal research, preferably through research and/or writing as a law student or through exceptional legal experience after law school. Law Teaching Fellowship candidates must have strong academic records that will make them highly competitive for law teaching jobs.

Fellowship Requirements

The Fellowship program is year-round, over one or two academic years, during which time the Fellow will:

• complete at least one substantial scholarly publication and present the publication as a work-in-progress to the UCLA School of Law faculty;
• teach at least one class per academic year of the appointment;
• work closely with a faculty mentor in order to observe and participate in teaching, as well as to complete a publishable scholarly piece;
• assist the Institute’s Executive Director with other projects relating to the Institute’s work, including organizing conferences and other events,  research, publications, public education and outreach efforts;
• permit the Institute to publish any article(s) resulting from the Fellowship—as long as such publication will not interfere with the Fellow’s ability to publish such articles in a law journal; and
• acknowledge the Institute’s assistance in any published work that is facilitated by the Fellowship.

Fellowship Benefits

The unique features of this Fellowship include opportunities to:

• develop expertise in business law and public policy;
• work with a faculty mentor;
• develop expertise in business law teaching;
• complete a published piece of research before entering the law teaching market;
• obtain faculty recommendations and support for law teaching jobs;
• participate in the rich mixture of scholarly symposia, invited lectures, and conferences of the Lowell Milken Institute for Business Law and Policy; and
• participate in UCLA School of Law’s rich interdisciplinary scholarly symposia, lectures, and conferences.

Application Material and Deadlines

To apply for the 2012-2013 Lowell Milken Institute Law Teaching Fellowship, please submit the following materials by March 1, 2012:

• A cover letter summarizing your qualifications for the fellowship;
• A current resume, including a list of published works;
• An official law school transcript;
• Contact information for three references, including at least one from a law school professor familiar with your scholarly potential;
• A detailed research proposal, no longer than five single-spaced pages in length; and
• A description of teaching interests (course abstract and plan for class or seminar preferred)

Interested candidates should submit materials as a single PDF or Word.doc file to estrada@law.ucla.edu.

Equal Opportunity Employer

The University of California is an affirmative action/equal opportunity employer, and seeks candidates committed to the highest standards of scholarship and professional activities and to a campus climate that supports equality and diversity.

I’ve already addressed this issue, noting among other things that “the loss of personhood would not have the slightest effect under Citizens United” because that case reasoned that the speaker’s identity is irrelevant.  In any event, I pointed out that “if personhood matters at all under Citizens United and subsequent decisions, the loss of personhood actually could be a constitutional boon to corporations.” That’s because “the post-Bellotti cases on corporate political speech showed that it is easier to deny First Amendment rights if the speech is attributed to an artificial person.”

In general, as I noted in my earlier post, this attempted sneak attack around CU crosses St. Hubbins-Tufnel fine line between clever and stupid.

It looks like this merger may bring to a head the “escape from Delaware” phenomenon I discussed a year ago.

Ted Frank responds that the fact that the company had settled criminal allegations doesn’t mean the board was irresponsible given big companies’ exposure to prosecutorial overreaching (here’s my thoughts on the problems with prosecutors).  He notes that given huge potential penalties and legal costs “even a risk-neutral set of executives would refuse to go to trial on criminal charges that they had a 95% chance of winning.”  As Ted says:

The issue is this: first, any corporate law is going to have to balance false negatives (valid suits against directors being thrown out prematurely) and false positives (invalid suits against directors costing tens of millions of dollars in time and money to resolve). Any opening up of the courtroom doors to challenge directors will reduce false negatives at the expense of more false positives; any increase in the burden to bring suit will reduce false positives at the expense of more false negatives.

Anyway, Ted continues, shareholders of NJ corporations can decide to invest in firms incorporated elsewhere if they think NJ law is too lenient on directors, aptly citing my and O’Hara’s The Law Market.

Of course Frankel might argue that the business judgment rule that the court used to decide the case is ubiquitous, leaving plaintiffs with little choice. Indeed, the only significant dissent is Nevada which is, if anything, even easier on directors than NJ.   Frankel might also argue that this indicates state corporation law is rigged for managers and that we would do better under federal law.  Perhaps what we need is a super Dodd-Frank/SOX on steroids that preempts state law and exposes managers to suits like the one NJ dismissed.

I would respond that the universal acceptance of the business judgment rule represents the market’s rejection of Frankel’s position.  If Frankel wants to complain that the market for corporate law is imperfect,  she would need to persuade me that shareholders are better off in the clutches of Congress.

Part of the hearing, titled “Fixing the Watchdog: Legislative Proposals to Improve and Enhance the Securities and Exchange Commission” will deal with the study on SEC organizational reform mandated by the Dodd-Frank Act and conducted by the Boston Consulting Group.  Frankly, I found it full of quotes from the consultant’s desk manual, with references to “no-regrets implementation,” “business process optimization” and “multi-faceted transformation.”  I believe the technical term is gobbledy-gook.

The remainder of the hearing will involve a discussion of the SEC Organizational Reform Act (or “Bachus Bill”) and the SEC Regulatory Accountability Act (or “Garrett Bill”).  The Bachus Bill proposes a number of organizational reforms, like breaking up the new Division of Risk, Strategy, and Financial Innovation to embed the economists there back in to the various functional divisions.  The Garrett Bill seeks to strengthen the guiding principles originally formulated in the NSMIA amendments by elaborating on how the agency can meet its economic analysis burden in rule-making.

I thought I would give TOTM readers a sneak peak at my testimony.  I aim to make two key points.  First, sincere economic analysis is important.  SEC rules have consistently done a poor job of meeting the mandate of the NSMIA to consider the effect of new rules on efficiency, competition, and capital formation, and they will continue to do a poor job until they hire more economists and give them increased authority in the enforcement and the rule-making process.  Second, the SEC’s mission should include an explicit requirement that it consider the effect of new rules on the state based system of business entity formation.

Here’s a sneak peak at my testimony for TOTM readers:

Chairman Bachus, Ranking Member Frank, and distinguished members of the Committee, it is a privilege to testify today.  My name is J.W. Verret.  I am an Assistant Professor of Law at Stanford Law School where I teach corporate and securities law.  I also serve as a Fellow at the Hoover Institution and as a Senior Scholar at the Mercatus
Center at George Mason University.  I am currently on leave from the George Mason Law School.

My testimony today will focus on two important and necessary reforms.

First, I will argue that clarifying the SEC’s legislative mandate to conduct economic analysis and a commitment of authority to economists on staff at the SEC are both vital to ensure that new rules work for investors rather than against them.  Second, I will urge that the SEC be required to consider the impact of new rules on the state-based system of business incorporation.

Every President since Ronald Reagan has requested that independent agencies like the SEC commit to sincere economic cost-benefit analysis of new rules.  Further, unlike many other independent agencies the SEC is subject to a legislative mandate that it consider the effect of most new rules on investor protection, efficiency, competition and capital formation.

The latter three principles have been interpreted as requiring a form of cost-benefit economic analysis using empirical evidence, economic theory, and compliance cost data.  These tools help to determine rule impact on stock prices and stock exchange competitiveness and measure compliance costs that are passed on to investors.

Three times in the last ten years private parties have successfully challenged SEC rules for failure to meet these requirements.  Over the three cases, no less than five distinguished jurists on the DC Circuit, appointed during administrations of both Republican and Democratic Presidents, found the SEC’s economic analysis wanting. One
failure might have been an aberation, three failures out of three total challenges is a dangerous pattern.

Many SEC rules have treated the economic analysis requirements as an afterthought. This is in part a consequence of the low priority the Commission places on economic analysis, evidenced by the fact that economists have no significant authority in the rule-making process or the enforcement process.

As an example of the level of analysis typically given to significant rule-making, consider the SEC’s final release of its implementation of Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.  The SEC estimated that the rule would impose an annual cost of $91,000 per publicly traded company.  In fact a subsequent SEC study five years later found average implementation costs for 404(b) of $2.87 million per company.

That error in judgment only applies to estimates of direct costs.  The SEC gave no consideration whatsoever to the more important category of indirect costs, like the impact of the rule on the volume of new offerings or IPOs on US exchanges.

In Business Roundtable v. SEC alone the SEC estimates it dedicated over $2.5 million in staff hours to a rule that was struck down.  An honest commitment by the SEC to empower economists in the rule-making process will be a vital first step to ensure the mistakes of the proxy access rule are not replicated in future rules.

I also support the goal in H.R. 2308 to further elaborate on the economic analysis requirements.  I would suggest, in light of the importance and pervasiveness of the state-based system of corporate governance, that the bill include a provision requiring the SEC to consider the impact of new rules on the states when rule-making touches on issues of corporate governance.

The U.S. Supreme Court has noted that “No principle of corporation law and practice is more firmly established than a state’s authority to regulate domestic corporations.”

Delaware is one prominent example, serving as the state of incorporation for half of all publicly traded companies.  Its corporate code is so highly valued among shareholders that the mere fact of Delaware incorporation typically earns a publicly traded company a 2-8% increase in value.  Many other states also compete for incorporations, particularly New York, Massachusetts, California and Texas.

In order to fully appreciate this fundamental characteristic of our system, I would urge adding the following language to H.R. 2308:

“The Commission shall consider the impact of new rules on the traditional role of states in governing the internal affairs of business entities and whether it can achieve its stated objective without preempting state law.”

The SEC can comply by taking into account commentary from state governors and state secretaries of state during the open comment period.  It can minimize the preemptive effect of new rules by including references to state law where appropriate similar to one
already found in Section 14a-8.  It can also commit to a process for seeking guidance on state corporate law by creating a mandatory state court certification procedure similar to that used by the SEC in the AFSCME v. AIG case in 2008.

I thank you again for the opportunity to testify and I look forward to answering your questions.

The Department of Health and Human Services this month notified Howard Solomon of Forest Laboratories Inc. that it intends to exclude him from doing business with the federal government. This, in turn, could prevent Forest from selling its drugs to Medicare, Medicaid and the Veterans Administration. If the government implements its ban, Forest would have to dump Mr. Solomon, now 83 years old, in order to protect its corporate revenue. No drug company, large or small, can afford to lose out on sales to the federal government, a major customer.

….

The Health and Human Services department startled drug makers last year when the agency said it would start invoking a little-used administrative policy under the Social Security Act against pharmaceutical executives. This policy allows officials to bar corporate leaders from health-industry companies doing business with the government, if a drug company is guilty of criminal misconduct. The agency said a chief executive or other leader can be banned even if he or she had no knowledge of a company’s criminal actions. Retaining a banned executive can trigger a company’s exclusion from government business.

Debarment is obviously a very serious remedy.  The increased use of debarment in this context has been controversial, especially in cases in which the executive has not demonstrated that the debarred individual is actually complicit.  The WSJ story discusses the Forest Laboratories example along these lines in more detail:

According to Mr. Westling, “It would be a mistake to see this as solely a health-care industry issue. The use of sanctions such as exclusion and debarment to punish individuals where the government is unable to prove a direct legal or regulatory violation could have wide-ranging impact.” An exclusion penalty could be more costly than a Justice Department prosecution.

He said that the Defense Department and the Environmental Protection Agency, for example, have debarment powers similar to the HHS exclusion authority.

The Forest case has its origins in an investigation into the company’s marketing of its big-selling antidepressants Celexa and Lexapro. Last September, Forest made a plea agreement with the government, under which it is paying $313 million in criminal and civil penalties over sales-related misconduct.

A federal court made the deal final in March. Forest Labs representatives said they were shocked when the intent-to-ban notice was received a few weeks later, because Mr. Solomon wasn’t accused by the government of misconduct.

Forest is sticking by its chief. “No one has ever alleged that Mr. Solomon did anything wrong, and excluding him [from the industry] is unjustified,” said general counsel Herschel Weinstein. “It would also set an extremely troubling precedent that would create uncertainty throughout the industry and discourage regulatory settlements.”

The issue of debarment also arises in the antitrust context as a weapon in the toolkit of antitrust enforcement agencies prosecuting cartels.  Judge Ginsburg and I have argued, in Antitrust Sanctions, that the debarment remedy in that context, along with a shift toward individual responsibility and away from ever-increasing corporate fines, would result in a shift toward efficient deterrence.   In our case, we discuss debarment for the executive actually engaged in the price-fixing as well as officers and directors who negligently supervise the price-fixers (e.g., with failure to institute an antitrust compliance program).   Without safeguards to ensure that debarment is imposed in cases of actual wrongdoing or negligent supervision, and also in the cases of settlement, that there is a factual basis for debarment, imposition of these penalties runs the risk that enforcement agencies will have arbitrary power to banish executives that are disfavored for whatever reason.  If its application is properly constrained, however, debarment can be a more effective tool in prosecuting antitrust offenses and potentially other white-collar crime than ever-increasing corporate fines which are largely borne by shareholders.  I’ll refer interested readers to the Ginsburg & Wright link above for the more detailed case in favor of adding debarment to the cartel-enforcement toolkit, including a discussion of its application in the antitrust context in a variety of other countries as well as non-antitrust settings in the U.S.

Prof. Davidoff’s pithy summary of the Delaware business judgment rule seems accurate, and I share his skepticism toward the argument that the rule is justified as a means of inducing highly qualified directors to serve.  I disagree, though, with his insinuation that the Delaware approach is unjustified.  The rule makes a great deal of sense as a means of aligning the incentives of directors (and officers) with those of shareholders.

Under Delaware’s business judgment rule, courts will abstain from second-guessing the merits of a business decision — even one that appears, in retrospect, to have been substantively unreasonable — as long as the directors acted honestly, in good faith, without any conflict of interest, and on a reasonably informed basis (i.e., they weren’t “grossly negligent” in informing themselves prior to making the decision at issue).  Courts treat the rule as quasi-jurisdictional, insisting that they simply will not hear complaints about the substantive reasonableness of a decision as long as the prerequisites to BJR protection are satisfied. 

One frequently hears two justifications for this deferential approach.  First, courts sometimes seek to justify it on grounds that they are not business experts.  Second, as Prof. Davidoff observes, directors and officers often defend it on grounds that it’s needed to prevent qualified directors from being scared off by the prospect of huge liability for good faith business decisions that turn out poorly.  

Neither justification works very well.  Courts routinely second-guess the substance of decisions in areas where they lack expertise and might, by imposing liability, dissuade qualified individuals from offering their services.  Consider, for example, medical malpractice.  Courts aren’t medical experts, yet they routinely second-guess the substance of good faith, reasonably informed treatment decisions.  And they do this with full knowledge that malpractice judgments dissuade qualified doctors from providing their services.  (Remember President Bush’s concern that malpractice verdicts were dissuading gynecologists from “practic[ing] their love with women all across this country”?)  There must be something more to the story.

Indeed, there is.  By insulating directors from liability for good faith, informed business decisions that turn out poorly, the business judgment rule encourages directors to take greater business risks.  This is a good thing, because directors and officers tend to be more risk averse than their principals, the shareholders.  I previously explained that point in criticizing Mark Cuban’s claim that shareholders and CEOs “have completely different agendas: Most chief executives want to hit a ‘home run’ — taking big risks for potentially big payoffs — while most mom-and-pop shareholders simply hope not to ‘strike out’ and lose their nest egg.”  I wrote:

… Stockholders would normally prefer corporate managers to take more, not less, business risk.

When it comes to managerial decision-making, rational stockholders prefer greater risk-taking (which is associated with higher potential rewards) for a number of reasons. First, stockholders have limited liability, which means that if a business venture totally tanks and creates liabilities in excess of the corporation’s assets, the stockholders are off the hook for the excess. Since stockholders are able to externalize some of the downside of business risks, they’ll tend to be risk-preferring. Moreover, stockholders are the “residual claimants” of a corporation — they don’t get paid until obligations to all other corporate constituents (creditors, employees, preferred stockholders, etc.) have been satisfied. In other words, they get nothing if the corporation breaks even, and they therefore would prefer that managers pursue business ventures likely to do more than break even. Finally, stockholders are able to eliminate firm-specific, “unsystematic” risk from their investment portfolios by owning a diversified collection of stocks. They therefore do not care about such risk (although they do demand compensation for bearing non-diversifiable, “systematic” risk). …

Compared to equity investors, corporate managers (including CEOs) tend to be relatively risk-averse. Unlike shareholders, they get paid even if the corporation breaks even, so high-risk/high-reward ventures are less attractive to them. In addition, they cannot diversify their labor “investment” so as to eliminate firm-specific risk (one can generally work only one job, after all). Managers therefore tend to prefer “safer” business ventures.

The need to reconcile risk preferences among corporate managers (directors and officers) and their principals (the shareholders) provides a compelling justification for Delaware’s business judgment rule.  Chancellor Allen clearly articulated this point in footnote 18 of the 1996 Caremark opinion:

Where review of board functioning is involved, courts leave behind as a relevant point of reference the decisions of the hypothetical “reasonable person”, who typically supplies the test for negligence liability. It is doubtful that we want business men and women to be encouraged to make decisions as hypothetical persons of ordinary judgment and prudence might. The corporate form gets its utility in large part from its ability to allow diversified investors to accept greater investment risk. If those in charge of the corporation are to be adjudged personally liable for losses on the basis of a substantive judgment based upon what persons of ordinary or average judgment and average risk assessment talent regard as “prudent” “sensible” or even “rational”, such persons will have a strong incentive at the margin to authorize less risky investment projects.

As Geoff has often reminded us, the optimal level of business risk is not zero.

My research, shows that people’s circumstances affect whether they are likely to act prosocially. And some hedge funds provided the circumstances for encouraging an antisocial behavior like not obeying the laws against insider trading, according to these investigations.

* * *

Recognizing that some hedge funds present social environments that encourage unethical behavior allows us to identify new and better ways to address the perennial problem of insider trading. For example, because traders listen to instructions from their managers and investors, insider trading would be less of a problem if those managers and investors could be given greater incentive to urge their own traders to comply with the law, perhaps by holding the managers and investors — not just the individual traders — accountable for insider trading. Similarly, because traders mimic the behavior of other traders, devoting the enforcement resources necessary to discover and remove any “bad apples” before they spoil the rest of the barrel is essential; if the current round of investigations leads to convictions, it is likely to have a substantial impact on trader behavior, at least for a while. Finally, insider trading will be easier to deter if we combat the common but mistaken perception that it is a “victimless” crime.

Rather than re-post the whole article, I’ll direct you there to see why she thinks hedge funds are so uniquely anti-social.  Then I urge you to ask yourself whether she has actually demonstrated anything of the sort.  Really what she demonstrates, if anything, is that agency costs exist.  Oh, and people learn from their peers.  Remarkable!  And this is different than . . . the rest of the world, how?  There are Jewish people in the world, a lot of them work on Wall Street, and many of them attend synagogue.  No doubt Jews mimic the behavior of other Jews.  Bernie Madoff was Jewish.  The SEC should be raiding temples all across New York, New Jersey and Connecticut!

The point is that she has no point, and directing her pointless observations toward hedge funds in particular is just silly (and/or politically expedient).  There are bad apples everywhere.  There are agency costs everywhere.  A police state could probably reduce the consequences of these problems (but don’t forget corruption (i.e., bad apples) in the government!).  The question is whether it’s worth it, and that requires a far more subtle analysis than Stout provides here.

And all of this is because insider trading really needs to be eradicated, according to Stout:

Of course, insider trading isn’t really victimless: for every trader who reaps a gain using insider information, some investor on the other side of the trade must lose. But because the losing investor is distant and anonymous, it’s easy to mistakenly feel that insider trading isn’t really doing harm.

Actually, the reason most people feel that insider trading isn’t really doing harm is because it isn’t.

I’ll leave the synopsis of the argument to Steve Bainbridge.  On the adverse selection argument, see Stanislav Dolgopolov.  Sure, there is debate.  Empirics are hard to come by.  But the weight of the evidence and theory, especially accounting for enforcement costs (one study even seems to suggest that making insider trading illegal actually induces more insider trading to occur (and impedes M&A activity)), is decidedly against Stout’s naked assertion.  The follow on claim that, in essence, agency costs justify stepped up dawn raids at hedge funds is even more baseless.

Related Articles

• How Hedge Funds Create Criminals (blogs.hbr.org)

Mandatory disclosure is a—maybe the—defining characteristic of U.S. securities regulation. Issuers selling securities in a public offering must file a registration statement with the SEC containing detailed disclosures, and thereafter comply with the periodic disclosure regime. Although the New Deal-era Congresses that adopted the securities laws thought mandated disclosure was an essential element of securities reform, the mandatory disclosure regime has proven highly controversial among legal academics—especially among law and economics-minded scholars. Some scholars argue market forces will produce optimal levels of disclosure in a regime of voluntary disclosure, while others argue that various market failures necessitate mandatory disclosure.

Both sides in this longstanding debate assume that market actors rationally pursue wealth maximization goals. In contrast, my work in this area draws on the emergent behavioral economics literature to ask whether systematic departures from rationality might result in a capital market failure necessitating government regulation. I conclude that behavioral economics is a very useful tool, but that it in this instance it cannot fairly be used to justify the system of mandatory disclosure.

As with any model claiming predictive power, law and economics rests on a theory of human behavior. Specifically, neoclassical economics is premised on rational choice theory, which posits decisionmakers who are autonomous individuals who make rational choices that maximize their satisfactions. Critics of the law and economics school have long complained that rational choice is, at best, an incomplete account of human behavior.

The traditional law and economics response is that rationality is simply an abstraction developed as a useful model of predicting the behavior of large numbers of people and, as such, does not purport to describe real people embedded in a real social order. A theory is properly judged by its predictive power with respect to the phenomena it purports to explain, not by whether it is a valid description of an objective reality. Indeed, important and significant hypotheses often have assumptions that are wildly inaccurate descriptive representations of reality. Accordingly, the relevant question to ask about the assumptions of a theory is not whether they are descriptively realistic, for they never are, but whether they are sufficiently good approximations for the purpose in hand. Until quite recently, empirical research tended to confirm that the rational choice model of human behavior is a good first approximation of how large numbers of people are likely to behave in exchange transactions.

Over the last 10-15 years, however, a new school of economic analysis has emerged that challenges the rational choice model precisely on its predictive power. Empirical and laboratory work by cognitive psychologists and experimental economists has identified a growing number of anomalies in which behavior appears to systematically depart from that predicted by rational choice. (For a good introduction to this literature, which is readily accessible to the lay reader, see The Winner’s Curse by Richard Thaler.)

Two of the more important examples of these decisionmaking biases are:

• Herd behavior: Why do lemmings leap off that cliff in Norway? What explains fads like Beanie Babies and Pokémon? Herd behavior occurs when a decisionmaker imitates the actions of others, while ignoring his own information and judgment with regard to the merits of the underlying decision.
• The status quo bias: All else being equal, decisionmakers favor maintaining the status quo rather than switching to some alternative state. The status quo bias can lead to market failure where decisionmakers’ preference for the status quo perpetuates suboptimal practices.

The extent to which behavioral economics calls into question more traditional modes of economic analysis remains sharply contested. At the very least, however, it seems clear that attention must be paid to the possibility that behavioral analysis sheds light on policy issues.

To decide whether behavioral economics tells us anything about mandatory disclosure, let’s conduct a thought experiment: Suppose we lived in a world in which the government did not mandate disclosure; instead, issuers can decide between voluntarily providing disclosure or following the rule of caveat emptor. Standard economic analysis predicts that issuers will voluntarily provide optimal levels of disclosure. Because investors value disclosure, and are willing to pay more for the securities of firms that provide such disclosure, issuers who provide it benefit from a lower cost of capital.

In contrast, a behavioral economics-based approach asks whether well-established behavioral phenomena might cause suboptimal disclosure practices to prove more “sticky” than conventional rational choice theory predicts.

In the interests of brevity, I focus here on only one of several candidate phenomena; namely, the status quo bias. (For more elaborate discussion, see my Mandatory Disclosure: A Behavioral Analysis.) The existence of such a bias is well-documented in the experimental economic and psychological literature. Many empirical demonstrations of this decisionmaking bias have focused on the so-called endowment effect. Subjects commonly place a higher monetary value on items they own than on those that they do not own, even if the two items have the same market value. Accordingly, subjects must be paid more to give up something than they would be willing to pay to acquire the same object.

Tests of the endowment effect demonstrate that the status quo bias is somewhat sticky. In the classic coffee mug experiment, subjects participated in several trading rounds, an experimental design intended to permit learning to take place over successive trials. The substantial difference between mug holders’ willingness to accept price and cash holders’ willingness to pay price nevertheless persisted. In my thought experiment, it thus seems plausible that a status quo of suboptimal disclosure might likewise prove persistent (sticky).

Various explanations have been proffered for the status quo bias, the most commonly accepted of which is loss aversion. People evaluate the utility of a decision by comparison to some neutral reference point. Changes framed in a way that makes things worse (losses) loom larger in the decisionmaking process than changes framed as making things better (gains)—even if the expected value of the two decisions is the same. Hence, a loss averse person (as are most people) is more perturbed by the prospect of losing $100 than pleased by that of gaining $100. A bias towards the status quo is a natural result of loss aversion, because decisionmakers give the disadvantages of change greater weight than any potential advantages.

If loss aversion is the principal explanation for the status quo bias, however, that bias assumes less importance in my thought experiment than might otherwise be the case. First, the decision to disclose or not disclose firm financial information to investors is a rather different one than the decision to give up a tangible asset with which one has been endowed. What loss is suffered by a corporate manager who decides to buck the nondisclosure status quo? Losses resulting from a shift to expansive disclosure will be felt, at least in the first instance, by the firm and not the managers who decided to disclose.

Second, if loss aversion were endemic, capital markets could not exist. Loss aversion primarily affects owners of goods bought for consumption rather than investment. In an investment transaction, such as the disclosure and investment decisions at issue in our thought experiment, the seller does not experience a loss when trading. Similarly, buyers do not perceive the money spent on such purchases as a loss. Accordingly, the status quo bias should not prevent firms from shifting from a status quo of nondisclosure to a new regime that provides optimal levels of disclosure.

Finally, loss aversion does not imply that decisionmakers will never accept the risk of losses, but only that they will demand a premium for bearing that risk. The status quo bias likely has effects only at the margin. Hence, if investors value disclosure but managers’ loss aversion perpetuates a nondisclosure status quo, investors should be able to overcome managerial inertia by paying a premium for securities of corporations that provide optimal disclosure. As such, the status quo bias is not inconsistent with the standard economic model’s claim that a regime of voluntary disclosure will lead to full disclosure. At most, the status quo bias simply implies that the premium investors must pay for disclosure will be higher than the rational choice-based model predicts. In other words, if there is a market failure here, it is a relatively low magnitude one. In turn, this implies the need for (at most) a very limited form of legal intervention designed to shift the status quo from one of nondisclosure to disclosure. Once the status quo has shifted, the premium will disappear, and the new disclosure-oriented status quo would become self-perpetuating. At that point, which may describe the current U.S. situation, the justification for continued legal intervention would dissipate.

There appears to be little evidence that the status quo bias is a serious problem in U.S. capital markets. To the contrary, the experimental evidence arguably implies that the endowment effect does not result in capital market failure. Recall that the endowment effect is well-documented in the laboratory experiments involving students trading coffee mugs. Instructively for the capital market, however, the endowment effect appears to vanish when people do not physically possess the commodity in question. Subjects trading tokens or vouchers demonstrate only a weak endowment effect. Because securities transactions more closely resemble the token or vouchers context then experiments involving physical possession of a tangible commodity, these results call into question the extent to which the status quo bias results in capital market failure.

Let’s assume that I’m wrong, however (it’s been known to happen). Assume arguendo that capital markets fail to produce optimal disclosure through voluntary corporate action. The mere existence of such a market failure does not—standing alone—justify legal intervention. In addition to the standard prudential arguments in favor of limited government, which counsel caution in concluding that a purported market failure requires government correction, behavioral economics itself argues against presuming the desirability of intervention. As Jennifer Arlen has explained (in The Future of Behavioral Economic Analysis of Law, 51 Vand. L. Rev. 1765 (1998)):

Proposals designed to address biases generally entail the intervention of judges, legislators, or bureaucrats who are [themselves] subject to various biases. The very power of the behavioralist critique—that even educated people exhibit certain biases—thus undercuts efforts to redress such biases. In addition, the decisions of government actors also may be adversely influenced by political concerns—specifically interest group politics. Thus interventions to “cure” bias-induced inefficiency may ultimately produce outcomes that are worse than the problem itself.[1]

In other words, the claim that law can correct market failures caused by decision-making biases or cognitive errors treats regulators as exogenous to the system. Once the state is endogenized, however, regulators must be treated as actors with their own systematic decision-making biases. It thus becomes evident that behavioral economics loops back on itself as a justification for legal intervention.

In sum, my work suggests three (complementary, rather than competing) potential answers to behavioral economics-based market failure claims. First, there will be a strong temptation to use behavioral economics too glibly. Advocates of government intervention will be tempted to jump from positing the status quo bias, citing the coffee mug experiments, to an assertion that the government needs to shake up the status quo, without demonstrating that the bias is truly valid in the specific setting at hand.  Second, a certain degree of skepticism about the power of law to effect social change seems warranted. Indeed, behavioral economics itself offers additional reasons to doubt the capacity of law as agent for social change. Finally, one cannot justify government intervention without asking whether the case for it survives endogenizing the state.