    [Senate Hearing 114-450]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 114-450

            OVERSIGHT OF THE U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                       BANKING,HOUSING,AND URBAN AFFAIRS
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                       ON

         EXAMINING THE WORK AND AGENDA OF THE U.S. SECURITIES EXCHANGE
                                   COMMISSION

                                   __________

                                 JUNE 14, 2016

                                   __________

      Printed for the use of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                     Available at: http: //www.fdsys.gov /

                                  _________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

     22-695                  WASHINGTON : 2016
    ____________________________________________________________________
     For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
    Internet:bookstore.gpo.gov. Phone:toll free (866)512-1800;DC area (202)512-1800
      Fax:(202) 512-2104 Mail:Stop IDCC,Washington,DC 20402-001

                COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS

                      RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama, Chairman

    MIKE CRAPO, Idaho                    SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
    BOB CORKER, Tennessee                JACK REED, Rhode Island
    DAVID VITTER, Louisiana              CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
    PATRICK J. TOOMEY, Pennsylvania      ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
    MARK KIRK, Illinois                  JON TESTER, Montana
    DEAN HELLER, Nevada                  MARK R. WARNER, Virginia
    TIM SCOTT, South Carolina            JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
    BEN SASSE, Nebraska                  ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts
    TOM COTTON, Arkansas                 HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota
    MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota            JOE DONNELLY, Indiana
    JERRY MORAN, Kansas

               William D. Duhnke III, Staff Director and Counsel

                     Mark Powden, Democratic Staff Director

                        Dana Wade, Deputy Staff Director

                        Jelena McWilliams, Chief Counsel

                        Elad Roisman, Securities Counsel

                    Shelby Begany, Professional Staff Member

                Laura Swanson, Democratic Deputy Staff Director

                    Graham Steele, Democratic Chief Counsel

                     Elisha Tuku, Democratic Senior Counsel

                           Dawn Ratliff, Chief Clerk

                          Troy Cornell, Hearing Clerk

                          Shelvin Simmons, IT Director

                              Jim Crowell, Editor

                                      (ii)

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                             TUESDAY, JUNE 14, 2016

                                                                       Page

    Opening statement of Chairman Shelby.............................     1

    Opening statements, comments, or prepared statements of:
        Senator Brown................................................     2

                                    WITNESS

    Mary Jo White, Chair, Securities and Exchange Commission.........     4
        Prepared statement...........................................    38
        Responses to written questions of:
            Chairman Shelby..........................................    68
            Senator Brown............................................    78
            Senator Crapo............................................    83
            Senator Kirk.............................................    84
            Senator Heller...........................................    86
            Senator Scott............................................    89
            Senator Sasse............................................    91
            Senator Rounds...........................................    96
            Senator Warner...........................................    98
            Senator Merkley..........................................   103

                                     (iii)

            OVERSIGHT OF THE U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

                                  ----------

                             TUESDAY, JUNE 14, 2016

                                           U.S. Senate,
              Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met at 9 a.m., in room SD-538, Dirksen Senate
    Office Building, Hon. Richard C. Shelby, Chairman of the
    Committee, presiding.

            OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN RICHARD C. SHELBY

        Chairman Shelby. The Committee will come to order.
        This morning we will receive testimony from Securities and
    Exchange Commission Chair Mary Jo White. Oversight of the
    Commission is an important part of this Committee's
    jurisdiction.
        The SEC is an independent agency tasked with protecting
    investors; maintaining fair, orderly, and efficient markets;
    and facilitating capital formation.
        The SEC is responsible for ensuring transparency so that
    investors have adequate information to make investment
    decisions and to mitigate conflicts of interest, fraud, and
    manipulation.
        This regulatory paradigm is one reason why our capital
    markets have long been the envy of the world and the lifeblood
    of our economy. Excessive and unnecessary regulation, however,
    may endanger America's status as the world's preferred
    financial center.
        First and foremost, I believe the SEC should focus on its
    core mission. This has become more difficult as the Commission
    has come under increased pressure to expand its mission and
    cater to special interests.
        Examples of such efforts include attempts to force the SEC
    to mandate disclosure on climate change and political
    contributions. These efforts are not new, and the SEC has
    withstood political pressure in the past. It is my expectation
    that it will continue to do so in the future.
        Chair White, as you pointed out in a 2013 speech, and I
    will quote you, `` . . . we make our decisions based on an
    impartial assessment of the law and the facts and what we
    believe will further our mission--and never in response to
    political pressure, lobbying, or even public clamor.''
        The SEC must, I believe, continue to adhere to those
    principles and uphold its fundamental mission. It should also
    periodically review the appropriateness of its existing rules.
        For example, while the Commission has undertaken work to
    review equity market structure, it has not engaged in a
    comprehensive review of its rules, even in light of the so-
    called Flash Crash, which happened over 6 years ago.
        I also hope that the SEC will continue to take very
    seriously the importance of strong economic analysis when
    promulgating rules.
        As we have seen, agencies that fail to undertake such an
    analysis in their rulemakings are vulnerable to legal
    challenges, as well they should be.
        An agency with thousands of employees like the SEC should
    be able to analyze in detail the impact of its rules on the
    markets, investors, financial products, and the broader
    economy.
        This is especially true today, given the cumulative impact
    and unintended consequences of the myriad new rules stemming
    from the financial crisis.
        If the cost of a rule outweighs its benefit, then the rule
    should be eliminated. If a rule passes cost/benefit muster, it
    should then be implemented by the appropriate agency.
        The SEC has the primary expertise in capital markets and
    should be the lead agency in regulating them. Specifically, I
    am concerned that attempts by other Federal agencies to erode,
    Madam Chair, the SEC's jurisdiction could undermine the
    integrity and functioning of these markets.
        Recent examples of this include the Department of Labor's
    fiduciary duty rule, the FSOC's continued focus on asset
    managers, and the Federal Reserve's targeting of broker-dealers
    under the guise of reining in what it calls ``shadow banking.''
        The SEC has eight decades of specific expertise in these
    matters. This should outweigh the desires of other regulators
    to expand their powers at the expense of investors and the
    markets.
        Chair White, I look forward to hearing your thoughts on
    these issues and the future agenda of the SEC.
        Senator Brown.

                   STATEMENT OF SENATOR SHERROD BROWN

        Senator Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome, Madam
    Chair. Good to see you again.
        Over 3 years ago, you were confirmed as Chair of the SEC
    and assumed the task of guiding the Commission's significant
    rulemaking agenda under the Wall Street Reform Act and the JOBS
    Act. At that time the destruction of $13 trillion in household
    wealth from the financial crisis was still fresh in our minds.
    The SEC and other financial regulators had completed many of
    the Wall Street reform rulemakings and were evaluating how to
    finish the implementation of the rest.
        When you last appeared before this Committee in September
    2014, you said the staff was proceeding on the outstanding
    rules, we could expect to see additional rules shortly.
    Although several rules have been proposed and some finalized,
    many are still incomplete. In particular, the Commission has
    not finished the derivatives rules under Title VII of the Wall
    Street Reform Act, and the path to their completion seems
    unclear. These rules are important because Title VII is a key
    part of reform to the financial markets.
        By increasing transparency, by enhancing oversight, by
    moving to more resilient and stable trading platforms, Congress
    wanted to make sure that future crises could be detected sooner
    and would do less damage. This is not entirely on your
    shoulders, on the SEC's shoulders, but there are certain
    markets, such as credit default swaps, that depend on SEC.
    Until the rules are completed, the SEC and other regulators
    will not have the benefit of a framework that provides
    transparency and access to market data.
        Another Wall Street Reform Act rule that remains
    outstanding would prohibit incentive compensation that could
    lead to excessive risk taking or significant losses at
    financial firms. We know what happened during the financial
    crisis in that regard.
        The multiagency rule was proposed in 2011 and reproposed
    last month. Six years after Wall Street reform became law, this
    rules still is not finished.
        The final rule would provide the market and the public with
    some assurance that senior executives at financial institutions
    will not be rewarded for taking inappropriate risks that could
    harm the markets, could harm their employees, or could harm the
    economy. I urge you and other regulators to finish that rule as
    quickly as possible.
        During your confirmation hearing, you stated that you would
    make strengthening enforcement a high priority throughout your
    tenure. You said then, and I agree, that ``investors and market
    participants need to know that the playing field of our markets
    is level and that wrongdoers, individual and institutional, of
    whatever position or size, will be aggressively and
    successfully called to account by the SEC.'' Yet time and
    again, we see repeat offenders enter into settlement after
    settlement that seem to have no effect on stopping the problem
    in the first place.
        As the cop on the beat, the question is: At what point is
    the SEC going to stop handing out warnings and start giving
    tickets?
        This is evidence in the waiver process. SEC has routinely
    granted waivers to banks following a variety of violations that
    could have resulted in the loss of certain privileges under
    security laws. Unfortunately, granting those waivers eliminates
    the significant consequences that could promote better overall
    compliance at those institutions.
        Finally, I would like to return to an issue that has been
    discussed many times in this Committee. Democrats in the Senate
    have repeatedly asked you to begin work on a corporate
    political spending disclosure rule. This is not a plea from a
    special interest, as some on the other side of the aisle might
    say. This is good Government policy. When you were last here,
    you acknowledged the ``intense interest of investors and
    others'' on this issue, but you pointed to the low priority of
    mandatory rulemaking. I realize this year's appropriations bill
    limits the SEC's work on that rule, but it should not prevent
    you from doing anything at all.
        I sincerely hope you begin work on a corporate political
    spending disclosure rule. The interest in it has only become
    more intense. I am interested in hearing your update, Madam
    Chair.
        Thank you.
        Chairman Shelby. Madam Chair, your written testimony in its
    entirety will be made part of the hearing record. You have been
    here many times. You proceed as you wish.

      STATEMENT OF MARY JO WHITE, CHAIR, SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
                               COMMISSION

        Ms. White. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Brown,
    and other Members of the Committee. Let me, before I start,
    just express--I am sure I speak for everyone--that my thoughts
    and prayers are with the victims of the Orlando shootings and
    their families.
        Thank you for inviting me to testify today on the current
    work and initiatives of the SEC, which are, as the Chairman
    indicated, summarized in some detail in my written testimony.
        As you know, the SEC is a critical agency that is charged
    with protecting millions of investors and safeguarding the most
    vibrant markets in the world. And the Commission has been very
    busy since I last testified before the Committee in 2014. The
    last 3 years have each been marked by a vigorous enforcement
    and examination program, empowered with new tools and methods
    to protect investors and hold wrongdoers accountable. In fiscal
    year 2015 alone, the Commission brought over 800 enforcement
    actions, an unprecedented number; secured over $4 billion in
    orders directing the payment of penalties and disgorgement, an
    all-time high; performed approximately 2,000 exams, a 4-year
    high; and, even more importantly, continued to develop cutting-
    edge cases and smarter, more efficient exams.
        The strength of our enforcement program can also be seen in
    the kinds, complexity, and importance of the cases we bring
    that span the securities industry, include numerous first-of-
    their-kind actions, and focus heightened attention on market
    gatekeepers like ATSs, exchanges, accountants, and lawyers.
        Significantly, approximately two-thirds of our substantive
    actions in fiscal year 2015 also involved charges against
    individuals, and we continue to obtain admissions in certain
    cases, which we have now done in over 50 instances since we
    changed our settlement protocol.
        The Commission over the last 3 years has also pursued very
    consequential rules and other initiatives to protect investors,
    strengthen markets, and open new avenues for capital raising.
    Since I last testified, we, for example, advanced major rules
    addressing key equity market structure issues--including
    controls on the technology used by key market participants, the
    transparency of alternative trading systems, and the
    consolidated audit trail--while moving forward with a broader
    assessment of other fundamental changes. We issued a series of
    proposals to address the increasingly complex portfolios and
    operations of mutual funds and exchange-traded funds. We
    adopted new rules for crowdfunding and smaller securities
    offerings under Regulation A, while also proposing additional
    avenues for small businesses to raise capital. We finalized
    major components of the regulatory regime for security-based
    swaps, and we continued to execute a comprehensive review of
    the effectiveness of our disclosure regime.
        This work marks the latest phase of extraordinary
    regulatory efforts by the agency both before and after I became
    Chair, enlisting all of our policy divisions and offices.
    Beyond our discretionary initiatives, the Commission has now
    adopted final rules for 66 of the mandatory rulemakings of the
    Dodd-Frank Act, the majority of them since I became Chair. And,
    Senator Brown, Title VII is a major priority for 2016, which I
    am sure we will get into. We have also now completed all of the
    rulemakings directed by the JOBS Act, and we have made
    significant progress on the rulemakings required of us late
    last year under the FAST Act.
        While our work in enforcement and rulemaking are perhaps
    the most prominent examples of the agency's achievements, the
    imperatives of our mission are also carried forward each day by
    the dedicated staff of our divisions and offices.
        The Division of Corporation Finance reviews the annual and
    periodic reports of thousands of issuers each year, helping to
    ensure that investors receive full and fair disclosure about
    the public companies in which they invest.
        Last year, the Division of Trading and Markets reviewed
    more than 2,100 filings from exchanges and other self-
    regulatory organizations to preserve a fair and orderly
    marketplace for all investors.
        The Division of Investment Management reviewed filings last
    year covering more than 12,500 mutual funds and other
    investment companies, where many individuals, as you know,
    invest their hard-earned money to save for retirement, college,
    and other important goals.
        Our economists in the Division of Economic and Risk
    Analysis produced more than 30 incisive papers and publications
    in 2015, including two major analyses to help inform our work
    on asset management.
        This afternoon, I will actually have the privilege to
    participate in our annual awards ceremony at the Commission
    where we recognize some of the tremendous work of some of our
    staff.
        The Commission today is a stronger and more effective
    agency, and I am honored to lead the agency during this time.
    Nevertheless, significant challenges remain if we are to
    address the growing size and complexity of the securities
    markets. It is critical that the SEC has the resources required
    to discharge our responsibilities, the new ones and the many
    others we have long held, in the face of a growing and ever
    more sophisticated financial services industry.
        I deeply appreciate that we must be prudent stewards of the
    funds we are appropriated, and we strive to demonstrate how
    seriously we take that obligation by the work that we do. At
    the same time, our resources are insufficient, and the cuts and
    limitations to the SEC's budget that the House bill proposes
    would seriously imperil the progress we have made and diminish
    our ability to fulfill our mission.
        While more remains to be done and achieved, I am very proud
    of the agency's impressive accomplishments across the range of
    its responsibilities. For that I want to again thank, first and
    foremost, the exceptional staff of the SEC as well as my fellow
    Commissioners, present and past. And I want to thank the
    Chairman, the Ranking Member, and this Committee as a whole for
    your support. Your continued support will allow us to better
    protect investors and facilitate capital formation, more
    effectively oversee the markets and entities we regulate, and
    build on the significant work we are doing.
        Thank you very much. I am happy to take your questions.
        Chairman Shelby. Thank you.
        Madam Chairman, I understand that the Commission can vote
    to delegate certain of its authorities to the SEC staff,
    including enforcement proceedings. Once the Commission has
    voted to delegate, how are you and your fellow Commissioners at
    the Securities and Exchange Commission made aware of the
    staff's use of that authority? And if the Chair is recused on a
    specific matter, who is accountable for the staff's use of the
    delegated authority?
        Ms. White. The Exchange Act actually is explicit on this,
    Mr. Chairman, that the Commission as a commission has the
    authority to delegate many of its day-to-day functions. It does
    not have the power, for example, to delegate rulemaking to the
    staff or----
        Chairman Shelby. That is set out statutorily?
        Ms. White. Yes, it is statutorily done.
        Chairman Shelby. OK.
        Ms. White. There are hundreds and hundreds of day-to-day
    things that we must do at the Commission, so it is very
    important that the staff have delegated authority to act.
        As safeguards, however, on that delegated authority, the
    Commission can review any of those actions. The staff itself
    can decide to refer something to the Commission even though it
    may have delegated authority from the Commission to decide. And
    the review of the Commission can be precipitated by any one
    Commissioner's desire to do so.
        Chairman Shelby. Once the Commission votes to delegate its
    authority to the staff, it is my understanding that such
    delegation remains in place under future Commissions, and new
    Commissioners do not have a chance to approve existing
    delegations of authority. Is that correct?
        Ms. White. Yes, it is, Mr. Chairman. I think essentially
    the way it works is that if one wanted to review or change a
    delegation, it would be up to the Chairman to put that on the
    agenda, whoever the Chairman is.
        Chairman Shelby. Madam Chair, would you support an SEC
    review of existing delegations, including an analysis of their
    appropriateness? In other words, you look back--you do
    oversight, I hope, in your agency, like we do here. Is it not
    important to look back and see what----
        Ms. White. Since I have been there, it is certainly
    something that I have discussed with various of my fellow
    Commissioners, and we all have the list of delegations that
    exist. I have urged my fellow Commissioners, if they have an
    issue with any particular delegation, to bring that to my
    attention, and we will certainly look at it.
        Chairman Shelby. You have often stated, Madam Chair, that
    the Securities and Exchange Commission is an independent
    agency. That is the way we want it to be. It was set up that
    way. And while one can expect some split votes because of the
    way the Commission is set up, there have been many party-line
    3-2 and 2-1 votes under your chairmanship. By comparison,
    according to the press, former Chairman Richard Breeden never
    had a 3-2 vote, and former Chairman Levitt rarely would take a
    matter to a vote unless he knew he had a 5-0 vote.
        Are there any areas that you can work on cooperatively with
    the other two Commissioners to reach a unanimous decision? And
    if so, could you give us some examples?
        Ms. White. I think we certainly strive for consensus----
        Chairman Shelby. We know everything is not unanimous.
        Ms. White. Everything is definitely not unanimous. I think
    somebody gave me a figure the other day that about 65 to 70
    percent of our votes are actually unanimous. But, obviously,
    that is still a percentage that have not been unanimous. I
    think I have discussed with you, Mr. Chairman, and I think
    Senator Brown and probably some of the other Members of the
    Committee as well, that one thing that I have found as Chair,
    even though we strive for that consensus--unanimity, indeed--on
    all of our rulemakings, so many of our mandated rulemakings
    have been under the Dodd-Frank Act, and the controversies
    surrounding the act at the time it was adopted have continued
    into the implementation of those rules. So we have ended up
    with an extra challenge reaching consensus because of that.
        Chairman Shelby. Madam Chair, in 2013, you posed for
    comment a study on assessment management by the Office of
    Financial Research that was requested by FSOC. This allowed the
    public a meaningful opportunity to provide feedback on the
    study and highlighted significant flaws.
        Given the benefit of public comments on that study, will
    you commit to posting other FSOC-requested studies affecting
    SEC-regulated entities? And if not, why not?
        Ms. White. Well, I think certainly at the SEC, and I think
    at other agencies as well, the benefit of the notice and
    comment process and even just a comment process if you are not
    in an APA rulemaking, is enormous. So I think getting that
    feedback is important. The report that you referenced, Mr.
    Chairman, was actually the report of OFR. They publicized it.
    But we did open a comment window because we thought it was
    important to gather public input in one place. If we were in
    another situation like that and OFR or FSOC itself did not post
    its studies to make it easier for the public to comment,
    certainly we would seriously consider that again.
        Chairman Shelby. My last question is in the area of
    repeated violations. There have been concerns raised by the
    public as well as Members of this Committee about repeated
    violations by SEC-registered entities. Two years ago, a former
    SEC Commissioner stated with respect to the most egregious and
    repeated violations of our securities laws and regulations, and
    I will quote, ``We need to ask ourselves a fundamental
    question: Should the violating entity retain the privilege of
    participating in our capital markets?''
        My question to you is this: In your opinion, when is it
    appropriate for the SEC to exercise its ability to deregister
    an entity? And if you could give us an example, that would
    help.
        Ms. White. I think it is an enormously important power that
    we have and should wield in appropriate circumstances to police
    the markets----
        Chairman Shelby. It goes to the integrity of the market.
        Ms. White. Absolutely right. Absolutely right. I think you
    have to look very carefully at what the violations have been
    over what period of time, and who was involved in them. You
    want an aggressive enforcement program to bring cases when they
    are there to bring. I am certainly quite open in the interest
    of strong protection of our markets that there comes a point
    where one of our regulated entities should no longer be
    registered, and I would not hesitate to bring a proceeding to
    revoke the license.
        Chairman Shelby. Thank you.
        Senator Brown.
        Senator Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Some of my colleagues--there seems to be a sort of
    collective amnesia on this panel in some cases and in this body
    about what happened with the financial crisis since some of my
    colleagues as a result, particularly in the House but some
    here, continue to push for the repeal of the Wall Street Reform
    Act, insisting it has created more problems in the financial
    system than it has prevented. A couple of questions to start
    with.
        Are you concerned by efforts to repeal Wall Street reform?
    Do you think it has been effective in improving our financial
    stability?
        Ms. White. I think the reforms under the Dodd-Frank Act
    have been enormously important in strengthening our financial
    system. Collectively, I think our financial system is much
    stronger and resilient now, certainly in part because of the
    actions undertaken by Dodd-Frank. So I certainly would not want
    to see those reforms repealed.
        Senator Brown. OK. Thank you. Despite the improvements to
    date that you have mentioned and that are self-evident with a
    stronger, more stable financial system, this reform, of course,
    is still a work in progress. In my opening statement, I
    mentioned the derivatives rules that are still outstanding. I
    am not just concerned that it is taking the SEC so long to
    finish its rules, but also that SEC is far behind other
    agencies implementing rules in similar issue areas. Let me give
    two examples.
        The CFTC covers a much larger portion of the derivatives
    market and has made significantly more progress than has SEC,
    even accounting for a few hiccups along the way, with far fewer
    resources than you have.
        Second, the Department of Labor was able to propose and
    repropose and finalize its fiduciary rule while the SEC only
    produced a study called for by the Wall Street Reform Act.
        In neither of those cases was the process perfect, of
    course, nor is our final rules perfect, but both agencies were
    able to adapt along the way and move forward. Why is the SEC
    slower than those agencies? What is not working?
        Ms. White. I think considering what the SEC was given
    between the Dodd-Frank Act and the JOBS Act, plus obviously all
    of our various ``discretionary responsibilities,'' which are
    vast, we have undertaken in the last few years a historic level
    of regulatory activity of great complexity. And I think I have
    said this before about Dodd-Frank and the JOBS Act in
    particular, and I have said it from the day I arrived, I am
    deeply committed to getting the congressional mandates under
    both of those statutes, and now the FAST Act, done as promptly
    as I can, but they need to be done well, and they need to last,
    and they need to be adaptable to how our markets change.
        I think with respect to the other issue you mentioned--the
    Department of Labor fiduciary duty rule--that is an authority
    that Dodd-Frank gave the Commission to decide whether to
    exercise or not. It is not a statutory mandate.
        Now, I have said myself, speaking for myself, about a year
    ago after extensive study that I think there should be a
    uniform fiduciary duty rule coming from the SEC under Section
    913 of the Dodd-Frank Act. That is speaking for myself. The
    staff has proceeded to develop outlines of recommendations, but
    it is up to the Commission as a whole to decide whether to
    advance that rule and then what its parameters should be.
        In terms of Title VII and the derivatives markets, you are
    right, our share of that market is a little less than 5
    percent, but it is an important part of those markets. Again,
    before I arrived--and this is not meant by way of criticism at
    all; I see how it made sense--what the SEC decided to do with
    its Title VII rulemakings is essentially publish a policy
    statement that set forth a sequence of when the SEC would adopt
    proposals first and then finalize those rules before they
    become effective. So we have been following that road map.
        I think there could not be a higher priority among all of
    the Commissioners, the three of us there now and the other two
    that left us last year, than completing those Title VII
    rulemakings. And I think in terms of this regulatory year, that
    is a very high priority certainly to finalize. We have
    finalized a number of those rules since I was last here, but in
    terms of the reporting and the registration and regulatory
    mechanisms for dealers, I am hoping we are done with those by
    the end of this year.
        Senator Brown. Thank you. We know from during the financial
    crisis how important it is that regulators work together.
    Industry is good at shifting its business model to find gaps,
    to find areas of weakness in the regulatory structure. Congress
    for whatever reasons chose not to combine any of the financial
    agencies 6 years ago, obviously did FSOC, but beyond that not
    really combining these agencies, and it makes your cooperation
    with other agencies all that much more important.
        Let me ask one other question. Democratic Members, Madam
    Chair, of this Committee and others have taken a close look at
    the policies and the practices and the decisions surrounding
    the waiver applications the SEC receives from financial
    institutions. I thank you and your staff for the information
    you have provided to us, to the Banking staff so far. I hope we
    can count on you and your team for additional assistance when
    needed as they make more requests.
        Ms. White. Absolutely. I think it is an enormously
    important area. As you know, Senator, it is an area that I
    focused on right at the outset of my tenure as Chair. We have
    made a number of changes to enhance the robustness of the
    process and the transparency of the process. Obviously, we
    continue to look at that for whether there are other
    enhancements that would make sense, particularly in the area of
    when we do not grant the waivers because we want to make
    certain that the public knows that there are many cases,
    including those involving financial institutions, where the
    waivers are not granted. But because of the nature of our
    process, that is not as transparent for reasons that are
    historical and good. You want to encourage people to come in
    and talk to the staff about whether they qualify or they do
    not, and often what they submit is nonpublic information. But I
    continue to look at that aspect of our process. I have
    certainly, since I became Chair, directed the staff to keep
    track of those instances that do come in and are not granted,
    assuming they are not anonymous, and, obviously, a number of
    people just will not apply for waivers because they know under
    our guidelines that they would be denied or would not be
    granted a waiver because of what the guidelines specify.
        Senator Brown. Thank you. We have particular concern about
    the lack of transparency in those waivers that are granted. The
    public sees an institution violates the law, asks for a waiver;
    the SEC issues a short notice approving the waiver. What do you
    do to--how can you assure us that the public and this Committee
    and everybody in our society will be able to understand more
    what has happened in how you bring more transparency when these
    waivers are granted?
        Ms. White. Well, again, on those that are granted, which I
    think are the ones you are addressing now, not those that are
    not granted, they are publicized on our Web site. They also are
    subject--in the case of the so-called WKSI waivers and the bad-
    actor waivers and some of the other waivers as well to the
    public criteria that the staff or the Commission considers when
    reviewing those requests. And then what is published on our Web
    site really does march right through what those criteria are
    and the facts under each one.
        Again, if there is some enhancement that would make sense,
    I am certainly open to considering it.
        Senator Brown. OK. We will come to you about that. Thank
    you.
        Chairman Shelby. Senator Crapo.
        Senator Crapo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chair White, modernizing our market structure is a
    complicated but necessary task, and I appreciate all the work
    that has been done by the SEC as well as by the market
    participants, investors, and academics on this issue.
        Senator Warner and I held a subcommittee hearing on this
    topic in March, and one of the takeaways was that while there
    has been a lot of positive input and work done in this area,
    there is concern about the pace of reform efforts and what will
    be accomplished.
        What are the top market structure objectives that you want
    to achieve this year? And how will this strengthen our markets
    and benefit investors?
        Ms. White. It is an enormously important area and, as you
    know, a very high priority for me personally, both in terms of
    some specific short-term reforms as well as a comprehensive
    review, soup-to-nuts, of the entire regulatory regime. We are
    building on, fortunately, I think the strongest, most reliable
    markets in the world, but that does not mean that they cannot
    be enhanced and optimized. So I have been pleased with the
    staff's work--but I always want things to be done sooner. That
    is my personality, among other things, and we certainly are
    concentrating a lot of resources on it. I have also been
    pleased to date with the work of the EMSAC--the Equity Market
    Structure Advisory Committee--that we formed early in 2015.
    They are tackling the core issues. As you know, Senator, the
    committee has received a recommendation from one of its
    subcommittees about the possibility of doing a maker-taker
    pilot. That is obviously one of the core issues. We are
    expecting a telephonic meeting where the subcommittee is
    expected to make a specific recommendation on July 8th, so I
    look forward to that. I think that is a very important area.
        A lot of things have actually already been done in the
    market structure arena. One is obviously in the area of
    resiliency of the markets. Shortly after I testified here in
    2014, we adopted Regulation SCI, which is the Systems
    Compliance and Integrity rulemaking that is aimed right at the
    critical market infrastructures and enhancing their resiliency
    and responses to incidents when they occur. That rule is now,
    in the last few months, subject to examination for compliance
    which is enormously important. That rulemaking is already done.
        I expect in this year rather imminently that we will also
    propose a rule to provide greater transparency of order routing
    for institutional orders as well as enhancing the existing
    disclosures that are made on the retail side. Again, that is
    very important information to our markets to ensure fairness,
    to see what your agents are doing as they execute your order.
    So those are examples.
        Senator Crapo. You referenced the telephonic meeting on
    July 8th. That is a report from EMSAC that you were referencing
    there?
        Ms. White. Yes. That will be a further discussion by the
    full committee of their subcommittee's recommendation on the
    maker-taker pilot. We are also taking up some other issues at
    that meeting.
        Senator Crapo. So following that meeting, do you expect
    that the Commission would be in a position to take the next
    action and move forward? Or when do you expect that this could
    get to a commission decision?
        Ms. White. Well, the next step is indeed for the staff of
    the Commission and the Commission to take in the recommendation
    from the committee, but it will be up to the staff and the
    Commission as to what to do and what the parameters should be.
    I do think it is important to do this in a well-designed pilot
    because it really does touch on a very important issue where we
    need the data.
        Senator Crapo. Do you have any feel for about when the
    Commission----
        Ms. White. I cannot give you a specific time, but it is a
    this-year priority to move that along as soon as we get the
    recommendation.
        Senator Crapo. All right. Thank you.
        Ms. White. And when I say ``move it along,'' I mean
    consider it at the staff and Commission level.
        Senator Crapo. Thank you. I also want to thank you for your
    past efforts to improve the transparency of the Financial
    Stability Oversight Council process by seeking public comment
    on the report by the Office of Financial Research on the asset
    management industry. There have been several hearings on the
    Financial Stability Oversight Council that focused on ways to
    improve transparency, accountability, and communications.
        In the Subcommittee hearing that Senator Warner and I held
    last year, the witnesses agreed that FSOC needed to provide
    actionable guidance to designated systemically important
    financial institutions on how they could derisk and ultimately
    shed their designation label, what has been referred to as an
    ``off ramp.''
        Do you agree that it would be appropriate to take
    additional steps to increase transparency, accountability, and
    communications in the FSOC process?
        Ms. White. I think that is something that we have to be
    committed to doing as we go forward. That is not something that
    may be completed at any point in time, and I do think FSOC is
    committed to looking for ways to enhance the transparency of
    its process. The so-called off-ramp process is an existing
    process under the FSOC rules and guidance. It is an annual
    process. But I also take your point about greater transparency
    regarding what the factors are that may be involved in that.
        Senator Crapo. Thank you.
        Chairman Shelby. Senator Merkley.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        One of the most egregious things in the lead-up to the
    meltdown were firms that put together securities and then they
    sold them, saying, ``These are the best things since sliced
    bread,'' but while they were privately taking bets so
    securities would fail because of the details that they knew
    about the securities they had packaged. Carl Levin championed
    an end to this type of egregious conflict of interest at
    Section 621. Here we are now 6 years later, and we do not even
    have a draft rule. Why not?
        Ms. White. I agree it is an enormously important rule, and
    I obviously know well the range of transactions that you are
    talking about that it was intended to address.
        As I know you know, Senator Merkley, there was a proposal
    issued in September of 2011, which is still outstanding, where
    we got tremendous comments. This was actually before the SEC
    had adopted its economic guidance. So, for some of the comments
    that we got, one was that we must really do very intense, good
    economic analysis. We also got comments that it was not tough
    enough, or it was too tough or it swept in too much or did not
    sweep in enough.
        It has proved to be much more complicated than certainly
    our experts in the agency envisioned. I think we asked in that
    proposal 100 questions, and that is a very large number--for
    example, who is covered, what is covered, and all sorts of
    various interpretation issues, including with respect to what
    the exceptions should be.
        We had a recent comment come up as late as December 2015 as
    to whether certain Fannie-Freddie guarantees would be covered
    because of the concern that those securitizations could not
    continue, at least under the parameters of the proposal. So it
    is one where the staff is working very hard to get a reproposal
    done as soon as it can, but it has proven to be very, very
    difficult to draw the right lines.
        Senator Merkley. This is one of the most direct examples of
    unacceptable Wall Street behavior where Congress took a very
    clear stand. Wall Street desperately wants this to never
    happen. The SEC has gone year after year after year failing to
    get it done under the argument it is just too complex, it is
    just too difficult. I do not think anybody in America buys that
    this type of conflict of interest is too difficult. The
    instructions have gone to the SEC. The SEC has failed the
    public on this issue and allowed this type of conflict of
    interest practice to continue, and I think it is absolutely
    unacceptable. And I would have said the same to your former
    Chair back in 2013, but here we are 3 years later, and now the
    responsibility rests with you.
        Let me turn now to the issue of political spending being
    disclosed by corporations. A million public comments have been
    received supporting disclosure because the owners of the
    company, the stockholders, feel like if the company is spending
    their money on political activity, they have a right to know.
    And under the concept of money is speech, if you do not get to
    know how your own money is being spent, it is really stolen
    speech. And that is bad enough, but it is certainly material to
    what investors understand about the future prospects for that
    company. What are they advocating for? What are they lobbying
    for? Who are they lobbying for? Who has which philosophies or
    which positions?
        And so both from the viewpoint of individuals getting to
    know how their own money is being spent on political speech and
    from the view of a material issue related to the future
    performance of the company, it is imperative that there be
    disclosure.
        There was such a plan on the agenda when you took the
    chairmanship, but in October of 2013, you took it off the
    agenda. Not even to hold the conversations, to prepare the way
    on this, this is an issue of freedom of speech. It is an issue
    of knowing how your own money is being spent. It is an issue
    material to the future of the company, and you took it off the
    agenda. Why would you do such a thing?
        Ms. White. Well, let me say first that I do deeply respect
    and understand the very deep interest in this issue on all
    sides, and I think it is also important to note that if the
    spending is material in the context of a particular company as
    we sit here today, that would need to be disclosed under the
    Federal securities laws. And we also have through our
    shareholder proposal rule, Rule 14a-8, avenues for shareholders
    to raise this issue with their particular companies, and they
    make great use of that avenue. The average approval rate for
    such proposals last year was about 26 percent. In some
    companies over the years using that avenue, there have been a
    few majority votes by those shareholders, and those companies
    have generally gone ahead and made those disclosures
    voluntarily. Certainly in large companies the number of them
    that voluntarily disclose political contributions has grown. I
    think more than half of the S&P 500 now provides that
    disclosure voluntarily, which I think is a good thing.
        In terms of the Reg Flex issue, which is what I think you
    are raising, I think there is some misunderstanding about what
    was on the SEC agenda and perhaps even, what I did in reviewing
    the Reg Flex Agenda as I found it. What has not been on the Reg
    Flex Agenda at the SEC before I arrived or after I arrived is
    to go forward with such a rule. What was on the Reg Flex
    Agenda, put on there in late 2012 and was there when I arrived,
    was an item reflecting that the Division of Corporation Finance
    would research and consider whether to recommend a rule
    proposal on this subject. My predecessor wrote to Congress in
    March 23 in response to a congressional investigation on this
    issue that neither she nor the Commission nor the staff had
    reached any conclusion about that--whether to recommend a
    proposed rule--and that no one was actually working on a rule
    proposal at that time.
        Shortly after I arrived, the first Reg Flex Agenda was due,
    and so I basically carried forward for the most part what was
    on the previous agenda, including that item. In the fall, when
    I had been there a little longer, I had a chance for the staff
    to do a deep dive of all the items on the Reg Flex Agenda, many
    that had been there, by the way, for many years and were
    aspirational. And the Reg Flex Agenda instruction requires you
    to put on that agenda the items that you reasonably believe you
    can complete in the next 12 months.
        And so as you know, I have prioritized since I arrived here
    completing the congressional mandates under the Dodd-Frank Act
    and the JOBS Act as well as, as we went forward, certain
    mission-critical initiatives like equity market----
        Senator Merkley. I am way over my time, and so in courtesy
    to my colleagues, I will just stop you there because we cannot
    get a full history. But it was listed at the proposed rule
    stage in April 2013 and was taken off in 2013. You have the
    sole power on the Commission to establish the agenda. This is
    an issue that goes to the core of who we are as a country that
    people cannot spend your money on political speech without
    telling you how the hell they are spending it or that you as an
    owner have a full right to know how your funds are being spent.
    I think for you to unilaterally remove it from the rulemaking
    agenda was an egregious affront to these core issues of our
    Republic. It came after pressure, political pressure. I think
    it is unacceptable. I think you should put it back on the
    agenda.
        Ms. White. That item and about 20 other items that were on
    the previous agenda were removed for the reasons that I said,
    and it was never on there to advance a proposed rule.
        Chairman Shelby. Senator Rounds.
        Senator Rounds. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Good morning, Chair White. You have stated in the past that
    you believe there should be uniformity between the fiduciary
    rules issued by the Department of Labor and the SEC. The
    Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
    recently released a staff report regarding the DOL's fiduciary
    rule. The report found, among other things, that there was
    extensive disagreement between staff at the SEC and the DOL
    over the fiduciary rule.
        The report found that, in addition to the DOL refusing to
    conduct a quantitative analysis of the costs and benefits of
    alternative approaches to the rule, as recommended by the SEC
    and required by the Executive order, the staff economists from
    both agencies also had disagreements over the rule. In fact,
    the report found that the disagreements reached the point of
    the Labor Department staff writing, and I quote, ``We have now
    gone far beyond the point where your input was helpful for me.
    If you have nothing new to bring up, please stop emailing me
    about this topic.''
        Chair White, how do you believe the SEC can structure a
    uniform fiduciary rule when it appears there are inherent
    disagreements between the two agencies over the fundamental
    goals of the rule?
        Ms. White. I think what I have said in the past is I
    believe that there should be a uniform fiduciary duty rule for
    broker-dealers and investment advisers when they are giving
    securities advice to at least retail investors. That is really
    under our rules. The Department of Labor and the SEC are
    separate agencies, and so our rules are not identical,
    including before the DOL rule was adopted in certain areas
    where our registrants may overlap with theirs.
        In terms of the Department of Labor/SEC staff interactions
    on their rule proposal, I think the comment you mentioned is
    from 2012, actually, on the prior proposal, so I was not here
    then. But I will say that the SEC staff did give substantial
    technical assistance to the DOL staff on the current, now final
    but then proposed, rule, including technical assistance on our
    own rules and what they provided, but also the possible,
    impacts on the availability of reasonably priced advice by
    brokers and what the impact would be on the broker model
    itself.
        The nature of those exercises--and we have done it with
    other agencies, too, on other rules where we have that
    technical assistance to provide--was not really to reach
    agreement but to make sure that we were giving our best
    technical assistance and input to the Department of Labor,
    which then obviously made the decision as to what the proposal
    should be, and put it out for notice and comment. I think the
    notice and comment was focused on some of those same issues.
        Senator Rounds. Would it be fair to say that, based upon
    the rule which is in effect right now coming out of DOL, would
    it be fair--and I do not want to put words in your mouth, but
    would it be fair to suggest that there would be concerns yet as
    to the availability of investment advice being made available
    to the smaller investors and perhaps a limiting of some of that
    advice right now based upon the traditional ways that we
    provide investment services to some of your smaller investors
    in the United States today?
        Ms. White. Again, I am very focused on that issue myself in
    connection with our work on a uniform fiduciary duty rule under
    Section 913. Certainly the Labor Department was focused on it,
    as reflected in their notice and comment period. I think
    certain changes were made in response to that concern and
    possible impact. But I think to some degree--and this would be
    true of our rules, too--you need to see what happens as the
    rules are implemented. Certainly we are available to provide
    whatever help and assistance we can to our registrants if they
    run into a conflict with our rules. Nobody has come to us yet
    for that, though.
        Senator Rounds. My concern is that sometimes as we try to
    protect individuals, we actually limit the availability to them
    of opportunities to invest. And I want to go into one other
    area here, and that is, one of the SEC's goals is to facilitate
    capital formation. One recent trend along these lines is the
    increase in the issuance of private shares which can have
    significantly less disclosure requirements relative to public
    share offerings. Private offerings can only be sold to
    qualified high-net-worth investors.
        In 2014, more than $2 trillion was raised privately.
    Private stock issuances under the SEC's Regulation D accounted
    for more than $1.3 trillion of this amount. In comparison,
    registered public offerings amounted to approximately $1.35
    trillion in 2014.
        Are you concerned by the fact that issuances of private
    stock have now outstripped public shares sold to all retail
    investors in terms of new issuance? I mean, doesn't this kind
    of point to a trend here of kind of the guys who can afford
    the--the guys who are capable of investing large amounts of
    money are basically providing a lot of the new public
    issuances, they are receiving it, and the smaller retail folks
    seem to be not in that position? Isn't there something going on
    here that maybe is not moving in the right direction?
        Ms. White. I think what we have an obligation to do--and we
    do is monitor both the private and the public markets very
    closely and continuously. As you know, we have a tripartite
    mission, which is to protect investors, assure the fair and
    efficient functioning of the markets, and to facilitate capital
    formation. I do not see those three pieces to be in conflict,
    but they certainly need to be taken into consideration in terms
    of everything we do.
        I think the point you are also making is on who should be
    within the definition of ``accredited investor,'' which
    obviously drives a lot of what happens on the private side of
    the markets. Clearly, from, our inception, that concept is
    meant to protect investors who may not be able to protect
    themselves. That obviously hits the core of our investor
    protection mission, which we feel obviously very strongly
    about.
        In terms of the public markets, one thing I do think we
    have responsibility for and we certainly, are looking at this
    constantly is whether there is something about our rules for
    the public markets that is unnecessarily driving away, public
    offerings. So we look very closely at that. Obviously, we have
    had with the JOBS Act the IPO on ramp, which makes it somewhat
    easier to do that. Again, we are still focused on investor
    protection, but I think that whole range of issues deserves and
    is getting very close attention from the SEC.
        We recently published, as you may know, the staff's
    accredited investor study with a series of recommendations on
    that, and that also touched on some of the issues you are
    mentioning.
        Senator Rounds. Madam Chair, thank you.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you for the time.
        Chairman Shelby. Senator Menendez.
        Senator Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chair White, I would like to bring you to the plight of the
    3.5 million United States citizens on the island of Puerto
    Rico. This is a situation where Puerto Rico finds itself paying
    33 cents of every dollar that it has toward its debts. The
    Government has been forced to make excruciating decisions to
    shut down schools, scale back essential services. Hospitals
    with no access to power are closing the doors. The island is
    losing at least one doctor each day, and we have one of the
    most significant migrations out of the island to the mainland
    in quite some time, which underlines the critical importance of
    a congressional solution that will allow the Government to
    restructure its debts and protect the people.
        But beyond those reasonable and necessary solutions that
    should come from the Congress, the people of Puerto Rico
    deserve to know whether illegal activity by advisers to Puerto
    Rico and its municipal entities controlled and contributed to
    the current debt crisis. Dodd-Frank explicitly mandated that
    the SEC and the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board protect
    municipal entities, and yet, despite the widely acknowledged
    problems on the island, neither the SEC nor the MSRB has held
    one hearing, Commission meeting initiative, or given any
    particular attention to Puerto Rico's debt crisis, at least not
    to my knowledge.
        So what I want to know is whether municipal advisers,
    underwriters, and broker-dealers--all of whom are subject to
    the SEC and MSRB regulations--that operated in Puerto Rico have
    done so free of conflicts of interest, whether they packaged
    and sold bonds worthy of the savings of hardworking investors,
    and, most importantly, whether they have acted in the best
    interests of the Puerto Rican Government and people. How will
    the SEC pursue this element of their crisis?
        Ms. White. I could not agree more about the state of that
    crisis and that what our Government--collectively in my view--
    needs to do to address that in a positive way. But in terms of
    the SEC's jurisdiction there, we have actually very closely
    attended to investments in various funds with bonds that may be
    at risk in terms of investor protection. We put out guidance on
    some of that from our Division of Investment Management.
        We also have brought two public enforcement actions that
    have dealt with brokers who have misled investors about the
    riskiness of those bonds. And while I cannot----
        Senator Menendez. In Puerto Rico?
        Ms. White. Yes. Yes, both of them--one I think in this year
    and one in 2014. I can give your staff the details of those.
    And, again, I cannot comment on specifics of anything ongoing
    that we are looking at now, but I think I can say that we are
    very focused on the issues that you raise in some of the other
    work we are doing.
        Senator Menendez. So you know, several colleagues of this
    Committee and others have joined me in a letter to you and to
    the Commission urging you to be not just the cop on the street
    in Wall Street but also in San Juan, and to make sure that
    those who may have contributed to this crisis are fully
    prosecuted, because at the end of the day, if that can take
    place there, it can take place anywhere. And sending a strong
    message that it is not acceptable is critical. So I look
    forward to your continuing work in that regard, and I would
    like to be advised of what is happening when it is available to
    be public.
        Second, I would like to go back to the question of
    corporate political spending. I continue to believe that
    transparency and disclosure to shareholders is of the utmost
    importance, both as a matter of corporate governance and
    investor protection. And it is not just me; 1.2 million
    Americans have implored the SEC to act by virtue of their
    commentary during the rulemaking.
        So it has been nearly 6 months since I, along with 96
    Members of Congress, wrote to you asserting that the SEC
    retains the authority to take critical steps to prepare for a
    possible rule on the issue of corporate political spending. And
    as we indicated in the letter, we expected and continue to
    expect the agency to move forward with plans to prepare for a
    rulemaking.
        Now, I know that the 2016 Omnibus Act is seen by the
    Commission as preventing them from taking the type of action,
    but that action specifically talks about issuing, implementing,
    or finalizing a rule. It does not speak to preparing a rule for
    that moment, because I can assure you that that provision will
    die. That provision will die. And we need not wait for it to
    die when 1.2 million Americans have said to you, probably an
    unprecedented number, that they want to see a rule in this
    regard.
        So I hope that--and I would like to get from you a sense of
    whether or not--I mean, we have pending nominees to the SEC. I
    did not care for the way either of them answered me on this
    question. I would like to know, Are you going to at least
    prepare and respond to those 1.2 million Americans and nearly
    100 Members of Congress who believe that you should move
    forward in this regard?
        Ms. White. Senator, again--and you may have heard some of
    my answers to Senator Merkley's questions--I deeply respect the
    strong views of those that you have mentioned. There are very
    strong views on both sides of this issue, and I have also
    mentioned how the disclosure is developing, both voluntarily
    and through our shareholder proposal process. But the issue of
    the SEC doing a rulemaking to mandate political disclosures by
    all public companies is not on our Reg Flex Agenda. So with or
    without the appropriations language the priorities that we are
    pursuing, and pursuing as hard and as fast and as well as we
    can, are really the ones that I have outlined since my early
    days here, which are the mandated congressional rulemakings and
    certain of the mission-critical initiatives. I have talked
    about asset management and equity structure.
        So I think that is the status now, and I say that with a
    full appreciation of the deeply held views on this, on all
    sides, including by 2,000-plus unique comment letters that we
    have gotten on the petition that you reference.
        Senator Menendez. I will just close, Chairman: 1.2 million
    Americans, I think very rarely has the SEC seen that extent of
    commentary, tells you the incredible importance that people
    believe in the nature of limited corporate spending at a time
    in our national politics that determines decisions in every
    asset of our life. And so I think that should be a far greater
    level of consideration by the SEC than it presently is.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Shelby. Madam Chair, before I recognize our next
    Senator, we have over 300 million people in this country, so
    1.6 million would be about a third of 1 percent and self-
    generated. I hope you as Chairman of the SEC or any agency
    would not react to generated mail from Republicans or Democrats
    but would do what is best for the country and also under your
    jurisdiction. It is my understanding that this is under the
    basic jurisdiction of the Federal Election Commission, for what
    it is worth.
        Senator Toomey.
        Senator Toomey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chair White, welcome back. You observed a few moments ago
    that one of the responsibilities of the SEC is to facilitate
    capital formation. There is legislation that I think would be
    very constructive to that end. It was introduced in the House
    by Congressman Mulvaney, and what it would do is streamline
    some of the regulations affecting business development
    companies, BDCs, and included in that is a modest increase in
    the leverage they would be permitted to use from a 1:1 ratio to
    a 1:2 ratio.
        If this were adopted, it seems to me, BDCs would be better
    able to provide loans that they do provide to small- and
    medium-sized companies, which, by the way, are finding it more
    difficult to access bank loans given the regulations of Dodd-
    Frank. It would also allow better returns for investors,
    potentially, with some added risk that would be fully disclosed
    to those investors. And it has demonstrated extremely broad
    bipartisan support in the House. I think his bill passed the
    House Financial Services Committee 53-4, and it was included in
    legislation that passed the House floor overwhelmingly.
        We have not taken this up yet, but my understanding, Chair
    White, is that you have some concerns about the leverage
    component in this, and I am wondering if you could briefly,
    because I have got limited time, tell me why you are concerned
    about increasing the leverage of BDCs.
        Ms. White. Yes. First, let me just say that I think BDCs
    have been very good vehicles for growth. They were designed to
    be that for developing companies that might not otherwise be
    financed. I think the original statute was passed in 1980.
        The current reality is that retail investors hold the
    majority of those shares, so that always raises our investor
    protection antennae. We have worked over the years--the staff
    has to try to facilitate BDCs' operations because they have a
    patchwork quilt of regulations because of their exemptions from
    some of the Investment Company Act provisions.
        I have written about this. I think when I first got here in
    October of 2013, there were some changes made in the bill,
    which I think improved it. I appreciate those. I also wrote a
    letter late last year to Chairman Hensarling and Ranking Member
    Waters. I still have investor protection concerns, or I would
    not have written the letter----
        Senator Toomey. What is----
        Ms. White. One is leverage.
        Senator Toomey. What is the concern about the leverage?
        Ms. White. One is leverage.
        Senator Toomey. What about the leverage?
        Ms. White. It doubles the leverage, which means that your
    upside and downside potential are multiplied or are multiple,
    and it is a higher level of leverage than any sort of its
    counterpart kinds of funds have----
        Senator Toomey. So----
        Ms. White. Second, I think it allows more investment in
    financial institutions than was originally conceived and allows
    investments in registered investment advisers, so----
        Senator Toomey. Right, so let me--I have got very limited
    time here. So it is true that it increases the risk profile, it
    increases the exposure. But so does investing in a bank. A bank
    is a highly leveraged entity. Retail investors are allowed to
    buy securities on margin. Do you support allowing retail
    investors to continue to buy securities on margin?
        Ms. White. I am certainly not opposed to that, but I think
    there are more issues with respect to this bill and risks with
    respect to this bill than just that.
        Senator Toomey. Well, but that is what----
        Ms. White. That is one of them.
        Senator Toomey. ----leverage is about, right?
        Ms. White. That is one of them.
        Senator Toomey. OK. I thought leverage was the main
    concern. I would simply observe that there are many, many
    opportunities for an investor to take on leverage if an
    investor sees fit to do so. Buying options, for instance, can
    create the equivalent of enormous leverage, much, much more
    than this very limited increase that would be, after all,
    managed by a professionally managed company. So I would really
    urge you to consider that among the various ways a retail
    investor can achieve leverage, this would be a very modest--it
    is heavily regulated. It is run by professionals. And the
    upside benefit I think is very significant.
        Let me touch on another item here. I think the SEC has a
    proposed rule that would govern the use of derivatives by
    registered investment companies, and, of course, derivatives
    are used for a variety of reasons to achieve fund objectives.
    They are all disclosed. It is articulated. If the SEC were
    merely consolidating previous guidance letters, then I rather
    doubt we would have seen the volume of comments that have
    resulted. In fact, I think there are some things new. One that
    I am concerned about is that the exposure that is used to cap
    the amount of derivatives is based simply on the aggregate
    notional amount of those derivatives when, in fact, notional
    amounts are a terrible proxy for risk. They do not measure risk
    at all. So why are we using the notional amount to determine
    the limit on these investment companies' derivative holdings?
        Ms. White. That is one among several important issues that
    we teed up in the rule proposal, and one, as you point out, we
    have gotten a lot of comments on, which the staff is very
    thoroughly going through as they consider what their
    recommendation will be for the final rule. That is probably one
    of the most frequently commented on aspects of it--not all
    comments are critical, mind you, but a number are for the
    reasons you state.
        Senator Toomey. So is it your intention that there will be
    some modification here and that there will be a measure other
    than simply the really meaningless notional principal amount?
        Ms. White. Again, I cannot get ahead of the process, but I
    can say that we are very focused on that issue, and the nature
    of our notice and comment process is that we very seriously
    consider all of the comments and try to basically propose a
    final rule that is optimal and better than our proposals.
        Senator Toomey. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
        Chairman Shelby. Senator Donnelly.
        Senator Donnelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning.
    Thank you so much for being here.
        In 1982, the SEC adopted Rule 10b-18 to provide a safe
    harbor from market manipulation liability on certain stock
    buybacks. Buybacks could have been considered market
    manipulation back then. Recently, in my home State of Indiana,
    2,100 workers were let go by a highly profitable company in
    order to get $3-an-hour jobs to Mexico. The CEO said returning
    cash to shareholders continues to be a top priority. We are
    targeting $22 billion of total shareholder returns through
    share repurchases and dividends through 2017. Of that $22
    billion, $16 billion will come in the form of stock buybacks--
    $16 billion in stock buybacks, while firing 2,100 workers in
    Indiana in order to get $3-an-hour jobs in Mexico to help fund
    the stock buyback.
        I will also note that the savings they get from this are
    less than one-half of 1 percent of the amount of the stock
    buyback.
        So my question is: You know, in 1982, this could have been
    considered market manipulation. What does the SEC think of
    actions like this now?
        Ms. White. Well, the safe harbor rule that you mention does
    not immunize companies from liability for market manipulation
    if it occurs. It is basically designed to impose some rules to
    at least try to prevent market manipulation. For example, if
    the buyback is done on the basis of material nonpublic
    information a fraud action can be brought. The safe harbor does
    not deal with that at all. I am acutely aware of the whole set
    of issues with buybacks. They have gotten a lot of attention in
    a lot of situations, and so we are focused on it.
        But the SEC does not----
        Senator Donnelly. Well, let me ask you this----
        Ms. White. ----dictate how--OK.
        Senator Donnelly. Should the SEC play a larger oversight
    role in overseeing stock buybacks as this has been funded by
    firing American workers?
        Ms. White. I take your point completely. I do not think the
    SEC has the authority to tell a company how to spend its money.
    What we do have, though, are disclosure rules with respect to
    buybacks that provide transparency to investors and the public
    of companies that buy back at least shares registered with the
    SEC under Section 12(g), and we are addressing that issue in
    our disclosure effectiveness review and our recent SK----
        Senator Donnelly. Let me ask you this----
        Ms. White. ----constantly to see whether we should----
        Senator Donnelly. ----do you think this----
        Ms. White. ----and make that disclosure more----
        Senator Donnelly. Do you think this was the conduct
    envisioned when the rule was changed back in the 1980s?
        Ms. White. I am not sure about the conduct that you are
    describing. Obviously, the way you are describing it--and I am
    not doubting it at all--it is a horrible set of events and had
    obviously very significant and unfortunate negative
    consequences. But, again, I think what we have designed with
    our rulemakings--and we are looking at it again to see if we
    cannot do more--is to avoid market manipulation, which is
    within our jurisdiction.
        Senator Donnelly. Well, in the SEC's eyes, who is the
    corporate responsibility to? Is it to just the shareholders? Or
    do they owe a duty to the entire corporate enterprise,
    including workers? You know, what is the corporation's
    responsibility in the eyes of the SEC? Who is it to?
        Ms. White. The fiduciary duty of the board, for example,
    and the officers is to their shareholders. But by my saying
    that, I do not want to imply that I think there are not duties
    and responsibilities----
        Senator Donnelly. Well, does the SEC assume that they have
    any responsibility to their workers, or can they just fire them
    willy-nilly?
        Ms. White. That is not a subject that is within the
    jurisdiction of the SEC unless it is something that has an
    impact on what is within our authority.
        Senator Donnelly. When you look at this, I think a big part
    of this is corporate short-termism, if you want to--you know, I
    do not know that that is a very technical term, but it is the
    reality of life. I met with these workers this morning. They
    were making $13 an hour. Their CEO made 11. The CEO before him
    took over $150 million out on his last day. And they are making
    13 bucks an hour on a very, very, very profitable plant, and
    they are fired so their jobs could go to $3 an hour in Mexico
    to help fund a stock buyback. Do you inherently see something
    wrong with this business model? Is the American dream that we
    all fight for? Is this what the SEC expects on conduct from the
    corporations that you regulate?
        Ms. White. What we expect from the corporations we
    regulate--and certainly as citizens expect from those we do not
    regulate--is fairness to not only their shareholders and the
    fiduciary duty they owe to shareholders, which is within our
    direct bailiwick, but also to their employees as well. There
    are studies out there on the buybacks and the benefits and the
    detriments that go both ways depending upon the context of the
    particular company when they are buying back, what they are
    doing with their funds, what they have to do with their funds
    and so forth. But I take your point.
        Senator Donnelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Cotton. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        I want to talk a little bit about FINRA and its structure.
    FINRA is defined as a self-regulatory organization. Is that
    correct?
        Ms. White. Yes.
        Senator Cotton. Does FINRA operate with a mandate from the
    Federal Government?
        Ms. White. FINRA is, as you point out, a self-regulatory
    organization that is a membership organization, but it is
    certainly an organization that is primarily responsible for the
    surveillance and regulation of broker-dealers.
        Senator Cotton. Does it use tools that are similar to or
    typical of those of an independent Government regulatory
    agency?
        Ms. White. Certainly on its exam and enforcement side. They
    have tools we do not have, frankly, because it is a membership
    organization. There are things they can do that we cannot do
    under our own authorities, but they certainly use surveillance
    tools, they use enforcement, and they use exams, which are
    similar.
        Senator Cotton. And they make rules that will govern the
    conduct of their members?
        Ms. White. They certainly make rules. Many of them are
    subject to SEC approval, but yes.
        Senator Cotton. Are there any other private organizations
    that are similarly structured and oriented within the
    securities law space?
        Ms. White. Not at the present time.
        Senator Cotton. What sort of input, to your knowledge, do
    FINRA members have into FINRA's regulatory policy agenda?
        Ms. White. I do not know the specifics of that. Obviously,
    they have a board structure, and they are a membership
    organization.
        Senator Cotton. What authority does the SEC have over the
    FINRA Board?
        Ms. White. We certainly oversee FINRA. We inspect FINRA,
    our exam staff does, on various issues, and some of their
    programs. We have some authority over their rules as well. Some
    of their rules.
        Senator Cotton. Do you have the power to appoint board
    members?
        Ms. White. No.
        Senator Cotton. To remove board members?
        Ms. White. No.
        Senator Cotton. So FINRA exercises investigative and
    prosecutorial functions related to SEC rules, Federal
    securities laws, and its own rules?
        Ms. White. Yes. Generally speaking, yes. There are some
    exceptions to that, but yes.
        Senator Cotton. Are those functions executive power, in
    your opinion?
        Ms. White. They are not. I know this is an issue that
    people talk about all the time, but they are not a Government
    entity. But the answers I gave are accurate, I believe, in
    terms of their powers.
        Senator Cotton. To your knowledge, does FINRA employ paid
    lobbyists?
        Ms. White. I do not know.
        Senator Cotton. OK. Thank you.
        I would like to turn to a separate topic--``shareholder
    activism,'' as it is sometimes called. On a number of
    occasions, you have commented on the role that economically
    motivated investors play in the capital markets. In a speech
    last year in New Orleans, you noted that, ``An intense debate
    is taking place in the business, legal, and academic
    communities as to whether activism by hedge funds and others is
    a positive or negative force for U.S. companies and the
    economy.'' In that speech you also said that the SEC's role in
    any given contest between shareholders and boards of public
    companies ``is not to determine whether activist campaigns are
    beneficial or detrimental but, rather, to ensure that
    shareholders are provided with the information they need and
    that all play by the rules.''
        So putting aside the question of any particular dispute,
    any particular company, any particular investor, do you believe
    that, on balance, engaged shareholders provide critical market-
    drive checks and balances to provide greater corporate
    productivity and management accountability?
        Ms. White. That is a very broad question. I certainly think
    they can.
        Senator Cotton. OK. You have also spoken favorably in the
    past about the role of cost/benefit analysis at the Commission.
    Given your views on the importance of a data-driven approach to
    developing public policy, are you concerned about some appeals
    to emotion that we see from some involved in the debate about
    so-called activist investing, which is sometimes also portrayed
    as short-term investing?
        Ms. White. The SEC is an independent agency and has always
    been. I am an independent head of that agency, and so I think
    it is very important for us to keep our eye on the ball and
    make decisions based on the merits, which I think we do.
        Senator Cotton. So in this space, you are committed to
    developing rigorous econometric data on the marketplace impact
    of potential disclosure rules changes or any other limitations
    on marketplace participants where rules changes would be
    proposed and adopted?
        Ms. White. Certainly any of our rules are subject to that
    economic analysis.
        Senator Cotton. OK. Thank you for that. Thank you for your
    appearance today.
        Chairman Shelby. Senator Tester.
        Senator Tester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for
    being here, Mary Jo. I appreciate the work that you do.
        I want to talk a little bit--because I appreciate you
    taking the blame for a lot of stuff, but I want to talk to you
    about the Commission right now. How many members are active on
    your Commission? How many members do you have on the
    Commission?
        Ms. White. We have three.
        Senator Tester. OK. And it is my understanding--and correct
    me if I am wrong--it has been that way for about the last 8
    months, right?
        Ms. White. Do you want me to give you the hours and the
    minutes? The last 6 months.
        Senator Tester. Six months. And is it true that since you
    have only got three, any one of those three can say if they do
    not like a potential vote that might be coming up, just stay
    away, and then you do not have a quorum and you cannot work?
        Ms. White. Well, as a Commission of three, we have to have
    all three Commissioners to do a rulemaking.
        Senator Tester. Yes, so any one of them can walk away from
    the table and you are sunk, right? That is pretty good power.
        Ms. White. They could, but I think we are very focused, all
    three of us, on getting the work done, too.
        Senator Tester. Well, that is good. What about your
    staffing? How are you staffed up? Do you have adequate staff?
        Ms. White. I think the SEC is a significantly
    underresourced agency for our responsibilities.
        Senator Tester. Would that change if you became a self-
    funded agency?
        Ms. White. It would.
        Senator Tester. Could you give me sort of--I mean, have you
    run any--are you 20 percent down, 30 percent down on staffing
    measures?
        Ms. White. I have certainly talked mainly in the context of
    our ability to cover on the examination side investment
    advisers, which are obviously enormously important to
    investors, particularly retail investors. I have also talked
    about how we are so outspent on the IT side by those we
    regulate that in those areas we have done some analyses. But,
    again, I respect the appropriations process, the congressional
    oversight process, and try to make the best case I can for more
    and adequate resources.
        Senator Tester. Well, I think that--and, look, I mean,
    there has been ten people speak ahead of me, and some of them
    have been very critical. Some on my side of the aisle have been
    very critical about you not doing some of the work that is
    assigned. And I can be critical, too. And, by the way, I am.
    But the fact is that you have got to play the hand that is
    dealt to you, and the hand that is dealt to you is a pretty
    weak hand right now, in my opinion. Would you agree that if you
    were fully staffed up and you had five Commissioners you would
    be much more effective and would get more work done?
        Ms. White. I think the answer to that is yes. Certainly
    being staffed up would accomplish that.
        Senator Tester. So we had a fiduciary rule that several
    have talked about, Senator Rounds and others, that got put out
    by the DOL, and I was critical because I thought this was a job
    you should have done, and I think if you had been fully up, you
    would have got it done. But, unfortunately, it did not happen.
    Are there any plans to get that fiduciary rule happening from
    the SEC's standpoint?
        Ms. White. I am certainly committed to getting it done
    because I think it is of enormous importance. But I have also
    made clear how difficult and long a road that is under Section
    913 of the Dodd-Frank Act and that I am one vote.
        Senator Tester. Yes, and so fair point. And it has been
    documented there were some differences between the SEC and the
    DOL when that rule was put out. And I do not hear you saying it
    is going to be done before this Administration is out the door.
        Ms. White. Well, I am committed to moving it as fast and as
    well as I can, but I cannot give you that commitment now.
        Senator Tester. In all practicality----
        Ms. White. It is a longer route than that.
        Senator Tester. OK. So we have got the DOL rule. So the
    question occurred to me: Do you have to enforce the DOL rule?
        Ms. White. We do not.
        Senator Tester. So who enforces it on investment advisers
    and broker-dealers?
        Ms. White. Enforcing their rules is their responsibility.
        Senator Tester. So the DOL will enforce the rules on
    investment advisers and broker-dealers.
        Ms. White. They would enforce their own rules with respect
    to whoever is subject to them.
        Senator Tester. Traditionally, wasn't that a job for the
    SEC?
        Ms. White. Not as to their rules, no.
        Senator Tester. No, but as far as investment advisers and
    broker-dealers go?
        Ms. White. And still is. Except not with respect to their
    rules, but with respect to our rules.
        Senator Tester. So tell me how this is going to work. I
    mean, practically, how is it going to work?
        Ms. White. Well, I think it is independent agencies,
    independent rules. We have had before this rule rules by DOL
    and rules by the SEC that overlap, so to speak, and we have
    managed our way through that pretty well. We clearly will watch
    this as it goes forward. And if issues arise we will certainly
    be available, and I am sure DOL will be available, to
    coordinate if a conflict should develop.
        Senator Tester. OK.
        Ms. White. And if and when--I hope we go forward with our
    own rulemaking--obviously, we will coordinate with them about
    any new issues that might arise with respect to that.
        Senator Tester. I appreciate it.
        Mr. Chairman, I will put a few more questions in the
    record, but thank you very much.
        Ms. White. Thank you.
        Chairman Shelby. Senator Moran.
        Senator Moran. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Chairwoman, thank
    you very much for your presence today. We have had a
    conversation in the appropriations process I want to continue
    to ask you about. It deals with the regulation of the National
    Marketing System. The question I have is whether the NMS plan
    governance model should be reformed to reflect evolution of our
    markets and add additional participants as voting members. My
    question is: Does the SEC currently have legal authority to
    approve the addition of additional market experts as voting
    participants in the governance of NMS plans?
        Ms. White. Subject to our overall SRO rule process, we
    could do that. One thing I should mention is we actually have
    recommendations coming from the subcommittee of the Equity
    Market Structure Advisory Committee on this very subject, but
    we are typically in the position of approving a rule filing.
    But we can also issue orders to solicit rule filings, if I
    could say it that way.
        Senator Moran. So maybe there is more to this story than me
    just asking you whether you have the authority. Is there
    something in the works? Can you bring me up to speed on this
    topic?
        Ms. White. It is certainly a topic that the Commission is
    focused on, the staff is focused on, and so is our Equity
    Market Structure Advisory Committee, and, in particular, I
    think it is called our Trading Venues Subcommittee. And that is
    one of the topics, indeed, that they discussed at their last
    meeting with the full committee, I think at the end of April,
    and is or may be the subject of recommendations.
        Senator Moran. Do you have attorney personal thoughts on
    this topic? Or are you just waiting for those recommendations?
        Ms. White. I am very well aware of the issues, and I know
    some accommodations have been made, which other advisory
    participants, have not found sufficient or satisfactory. And so
    it is an issue I am focused on. It is an issue I continue to
    consider whether and what changes, if so, should be made.
        Senator Moran. OK. I want to follow up a bit on the Senator
    from Arkansas' conversation about FINRA oversight. I noticed
    that FINRA appointed a new CEO yesterday who is a former
    employee of the SEC. I guess my question is: How do you satisfy
    the need for congressional oversight of FINRA? Is it just a
    matter of we have oversight over the SEC and the SEC has
    oversight over FINRA? Or is there a greater opportunity--we
    have no appropriations process there, no confirmation process.
    Occasionally, FINRA representation is before Congress in a
    setting like this, but beyond that, it seems to me that FINRA's
    role is growing more engaged in regulatory activities and
    Congress has little oversight in that regard.
        Ms. White. You certainly, as you indicate, have oversight
    authority over the SEC, who has oversight authority and exam
    authority over FINRA, and it is an important one, I think. And,
    clearly, FINRA is a very important component of our investor
    protection and market safeguarding.
        Since I have come to the SEC as Chair, we have enhanced our
    oversight of FINRA and continue to do so. I think I heard Rick
    Ketchum, the outgoing president and CEO, indicate that he
    understands the interest by Congress, given their activities
    and the importance of their activities, in learning about them.
    I do not know if ``oversight'' is quite the right word for the
    reasons that you indicate. And, by the way, I think Rick
    Ketchum and Robert Cook, who is his successor, are just
    tremendous public servants, and we work very well with them.
    Obviously, we oversee them, but I have found them both to be
    extraordinarily knowledgeable--I know Rick better than I know
    Robert, but I know them both--about the markets, very committed
    to investment protection. So I think that is always a
    safeguard.
        Senator Moran. I think you are telling me that my assurance
    is that you are watching over FINRA, and we need to watch--I
    know you would not say this, but we need to watch over the SEC.
    Maybe you would say that.
        [Laughter.]
        Ms. White. It will happen anyway, right? I think that that
    is correct. I guess the other part of my answer was that I am
    aware of the need, and we have moved in that direction to
    enhance our oversight of FINRA at the SEC.
        Senator Moran. You may use your position to encourage FINRA
    to be cooperative with Congress, open and available to us. That
    would be useful.
        Ms. White. Yes. I agree.
        Senator Moran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Shelby. Senator Warren.
        Senator Warren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you for being here, Chair White. As you know, the
    SEC's mission is to protect investors and our capital markets,
    and requiring companies to disclose information is a critical
    part of that mission. Publicly traded companies may not like
    disclosing potentially embarrassing or damaging information,
    but the SEC's job is to look out for investors, not for big
    companies.
        Now, there is a lot you could be doing to protect
    investors. There are still 20 mandatory Dodd-Frank rules from
    2010 that the SEC has not completed, and there are more than a
    million people, including countless investors and former SEC
    commissioners, pushing the agency to require publicly traded
    companies to disclose their political contributions. But
    instead of moving forward on issues intended to help investors,
    you have actually headed in the opposite direction.
        Since your first year in office, you have dedicated
    significant SEC time and resources to a project you invented
    and called the Disclosure Effectiveness Initiative. According
    to the 2013 speech you gave, your big idea behind this project
    is that the SEC might be requiring companies to disclose too
    much information, causing investors to suffer from something
    you call information overload.
        Now, I am all for eliminating redundant disclosures or
    improving the ways that information is presented but, honestly,
    I have never heard of the concept of information overload in
    the context of investing in stocks. I have never heard of the
    idea that investors actually want less information than they
    are getting.
        So I have a pretty simple question. The SEC is an investor
    protection agency, so when you launched your project, what
    evidence did you have that information overload was a real
    problem that investors wanted you to solve?
        Ms. White. It is an issue, Senator Warren, that the
    Commission has been looking at for, really, decades, among
    others. But the purpose of disclosure effectiveness--and by the
    way, it was not invented by me--it was basically in response to
    a congressional mandate to do a report that reviewed our entire
    Regulation S-K concept.
        Senator Warren. I am sorry; when was this report that you
    are talking about?
        Ms. White. It was, filed with Congress at the end of 2013.
        Senator Warren. So are you--now, wait. Are you talking
    about the JOBS Act report?
        Ms. White. Yes.
        Senator Warren. Because that one, I actually looked at
    that.
        Ms. White. Yes.
        Senator Warren. And what was asked of you was that the SEC
    review one subset of disclosures to see if that subset should
    be modified as they apply to one subset of companies, so-called
    emerging growth companies. Your project has gone way----
        Ms. White. Right.
        Senator Warren. ----beyond the boundaries identified in
    that law.
        Ms. White. Emerging growth companies are a very broad
    swath, as you know, of the markets.
        Senator Warren. I understand, but that is not what your
    project is.
        Ms. White. But my point is we have been, for decades at the
    SEC, undergoing disclosure effectiveness review. And I
    absolutely agree that there is nothing more----
        Senator Warren. That is not my question.
        Ms. White. ----there is nothing more important----
        Senator Warren. My question is----
        Ms. White. ----there is nothing more important than our
    disclosure powers.
        Senator Warren. ----when you launched your initiative
    called the Information Overload, this is what you identified.
    And I just want to know what evidence you have that this is a
    real problem, that investors have come to you and said: We are
    worried about getting too much information. Just what evidence
    did you----
        Ms. White. First of all, the review is not limited to
    duplicative or overloaded information. It is really----
        Senator Warren. You mean the review in the 2012 JOBS Act?
        Ms. White. No, no, our review. It is meant to make
    disclosure more meaningful to investors. And we have also
    gotten comments, recently, from all kinds of constituents,
    including our Investor Advisory Committee, about identifying,
    and really not objecting to removing, things that are
    repetitive, duplicative, or not useful. And the purpose of this
    review is to make disclosure more meaningful for investors.
        Senator Warren. I did not--I started this by saying I do
    not have a problem with getting rid of duplication. I do not
    have a problem with making it more effective. The question I
    asked you about is whether or not this so-called information
    overload is a real problem identified by investors that have
    come to you.
        Let us be honest about this. I cannot find, and you have
    not produced, a single investor who as complained to the SEC
    about receiving too much information. Investors do not want
    less information about the companies where they put their
    money. In fact, I think that is ridiculous. The SEC's own
    Investor Advisory Committee, which includes everyone from hedge
    funds to pension funds to retail investors, say recently that
    the current amount of disclosure--and here was their word--is
    appropriate.
        So who wants less information to be disclosed? It is pretty
    clear. The National Chamber of Commerce, which represents the
    giant companies that have to do the disclosing. The Chamber has
    produced a fact-free report, whining about this nonexistent
    information overload problem, in 2014, shortly after you
    launched your initiative.
        You know, information overload is a problem that was
    invented to justify a project aimed at making life easier for
    big companies and harder for investors. In fact, Keith Higgins,
    the SEC's head of the Corporation Finance Division and the lead
    on this project, kind of let the cat out of the bag in 2014
    when he said in a speech the aim of this project was ``to
    reduce the burden on companies, consistent with our mission of
    investor protection, wherever we can.''
        Now, I recognize that Congressional Republicans slipped
    language into the must-pass highway bill at the end of last
    year that asks the SEC to review disclosures with an eye toward
    eliminating ones that are unnecessary. Of course, that does not
    justify the SEC dedicating resources to this project for 2
    years before that. But nevertheless, given the views of your
    own Investor Advisory Committee that the current disclosures
    are appropriate, do you agree that the supposed information
    overload problem does not exist?
        Ms. White. Well, if you go back to even Thurgood Marshall
    years ago, in defining materiality under the Federal Securities
    laws, the concern was expressed that too much information could
    cloud and crowd out the meaningful. I think you are describing
    our disclosure effectiveness review in a way that is much
    narrower than its intent.
        Senator Warren. That is the extent of your evidence?
        Ms. White. And I think one of the most important things
    about the disclosure effectiveness review is that we are
    listening to everyone. We are also talking about adding
    information in this review that is needed to be added, for
    example on foreign taxes and other things. But it is also the
    manner in which the information is being provided to investors
    that is a huge priority of this review.
        Senator Warren. We are over our time so let me just stop
    you there. I have said now three times, I think, in just this
    brief exchange, I am fine with cutting out duplication; I am
    fine with making the information clearer, and as should be
    clear; I am fine with providing more information. What I am
    trying to identify is something that you specifically have
    targeted and talked about.
        I am frustrated that, at your direction, the SEC has
    voluntarily spent 2 years trying to address a problem that you
    have no evidence exists. Instead of making up work to help
    giant corporations, the SEC should do its job, starting with
    the 20 required rules under Dodd-Frank that still are not fixed
    6 years after the law was passed. Your job is to look out for
    investors, but you have put the interests of the Chamber of
    Commerce and their big business members at the top of your
    priority list.
        Chairman Shelby. Your time is up.
        Senator Warren. A year ago I called your leadership at the
    SEC ``extremely disappointing.'' Today I am more disappointed
    than ever.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. White. And I am disappointed in your disappointment and
    could not disagree more with your characterization of what we
    are trying to do to improve our disclosure regime for investors
    to make it better. And we----
        Senator Warren. When you bring me evidence of this so-
    called information overload that you have initiated, then we
    can have more conversation about how disappointing this
    leadership has been.
        Ms. White. I would suggest you read the Regulation S-K
    concept release for the range of issues we are addressing,
    including that.
        Senator Warren. I would like to see some evidence that
    there really is a problem here.
        Chairman Shelby. Senator Warner.
        Senator Warner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chair White, it is good to see you again. I want to move to
    another area of concern that I have. I have seen evidence
    recently--I am sure you probably have as well. RBC put together
    a chart of--its complexity is a little overwhelming--that there
    were 839 different fee structures-- I am getting to the maker-
    taker issue--with 2,700 different iterations in terms of
    incentives and rebates within our market structure right now,
    that quite honestly give the impression that the system is
    rigged to direct trading through to those firms and entities
    that are going to give you the biggest rebate or fee structure.
        It seems to me that there is an extraordinary amount of
    conflict of interest here in the whole question of brokers and
    their clients. When we look at this--and we have got,
    obviously, the complexity of our markets and trying to make
    sure--I agree with Senator Warren that we have got to get
    information out in a clear and transparent way. But, boy, you
    talk about an area that is opaque. You know, how are we going
    to get through this?
        Now, you have talked about this back in 2014, the negative
    outcomes of some of these--this structure. You know, I strongly
    believe we need to move quickly on the maker-taker pilot. I
    would encourage you that when we take a look at this maker-
    taker pilot, that we have all venues included, both those lit
    and unlit.
        When we think about--again, if you look at that RBC chart
    and then you add the dark pools behind it, enormous challenges,
    and that we do not--you know, I know that the Trade Act
    component issue added a whole series of complexity to the tick
    size project. And my hope is that we will not see those same
    kind of great to have but potentially items that dramatically
    slow down the ability for us to bring more transparency to our
    markets, and particularly in terms of this area where there
    appears to be an enormous amount of conflict of interest. So
    could you speak to that?
        Ms. White. First I will say--and I think I said it at the
    Committee meeting as well--I do think we should promptly
    proceed with a well-designed pilot. The discussion, of the----
        Senator Warner. How promptly do you think--I mean,
    considering we saw the tick size and----
        Ms. White. Right.
        Senator Warner. ----we have gone through this a number of
    times and I know it has been delayed again.
        Ms. White. For the tick size pilot, as you know, we ended
    up having to order the SRO's to submit a plan that would work.
    And I think it is enormously important. It will launch in
    October of this year, but obviously it took a while to do that.
        I do think you have got to be careful that you are getting
    the information that you need to have from these pilots. I
    think you may not, Senator Warner, have been in the room when I
    mentioned before that we are expecting a recommendation at a
    July 8th telephonic meeting from the subcommittee that is in
    charge of this subject matter at the subcommittee level to the
    full committee on July 8th. And frankly, I urged that to happen
    sooner than their next scheduled meeting so that we could move
    this along.
        It obviously is up to the Commission, and the staff to
    recommend to the Commission what those parameters should be.
    But it is one that I think is more complicated than it seems. I
    do not think the system is rigged, but I think it has developed
    in a way that we have really got to figure out how to deal
    with. And I am particularly concerned about the conflicts of
    interest inherent in it.
        Senator Warner. Once again----
        Ms. White. Yes.
        Senator Warner. ----you sort through this bespoke Byzantine
    process, and how any investor, small or large for that matter,
    really knows where their trades are being directed based upon
    the level of fees and rebates. You know, we need more market
    confidence, and I really think moving aggressively on this----
        Ms. White. I think our transparency proposals are an
    important part of that too, but----
        Senator Warner. Right.
        Let me, the last few seconds here, go back. Senator Moran
    raised some of the question around market governance. And as
    more and more of these large exchanges do these--the SIPs, the
    securities exchange processors, and are making decisions to
    make huge capital investments in technology, sometimes that
    technology which may give them that fractional second advantage
    over others. And as I have said before, you know, I do not want
    to appear as a Luddite, but I do believe at some point speed
    and the god of liquidity being the answer is not always the
    completely correct answer.
        But as we sort through this, and with all the various
    exchanges, you know, can you expand on what you said to Senator
    Moran in terms of governance? How do we make sure that, in
    terms of market governance, we have got all the right parties
    at the table sorting through these--sorting through these
    issues?
        Ms. White. I am not sure we are talking about the NMS
    governance, which we were addressing, but frankly my whole idea
    for the Equity Market Structure Advisory Committee was to try
    to bring in expertises across the range of constituents, and
    also to make sure we had a panel at every one of those meetings
    that had everybody else there that had a different point of
    view and an expertise. And I have been very pleased with it so
    far. It is also something that focuses and I think moves along
    more promptly the Commission's comprehensive review of these
    market structure issues, and it really needs to be there.
        In terms of the speed issue, certainly you can get to
    diminishing returns. I think you had that conversation with
    Steve Luparello at your subcommittee hearing. I do not think
    you roll back technology. We have had tremendous benefits,
    obviously to retail investors and institutional investors in
    our markets from the technological advances.
        Sometimes people talk about high-frequency traders as if
    they are one thing, and they are not. They are not monolithic.
    They have different strategies. And so, one of the proposals
    that the staff is working on is an antitrading disruption rule,
    which deals with, when markets are particularly vulnerable,
    liquidity being taken away by virtue of speed, to avoid that.
    So the issues, again, are complicated, but I am largely
    agreeing with you.
        Senator Warner. And my time expired.
        I just want to say, Mr. Chairman, that, you know, as we
    look at complexities in the equities market, as we have seen
    complexities in the bond market, you know, even in the
    Treasurys markets, obviously the options markets--and my fear
    sometimes that some of these bespoke products and the incentive
    systems--you know, I worry that the complexity has gotten so
    great and the effect it has on the overall market ecosystem,
    that it is bleeding from one market into another.
        And I appreciate, Chair White, your comments, but would
    love to come back and revisit with that.
        Chairman Shelby. Thank you.
        Senator Schumer.
        Senator Schumer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Welcome back, Chairman White, my fellow New Yorker. And as
    you know, I have a great deal of respect for you, but I am
    going to go back to the issue I care so much about.
        I just want to--the money--I am now involved in a lot of
    our races, our campaigns. The money that is pouring in is
    unprecedented and it is undisclosed. And it is a few
    organizations. One is the Koch brother organization, one is the
    Karl Rove organization, one is the Chamber of Commerce itself--
    pouring in, poisoning our politics, and we do not know where
    that money comes from. The shareholders do not know where that
    money comes from.
        I will have to tell you, it is more important than anything
    else to me before the SEC. All the things between shareholder
    and corporate governance pale before what is happening in
    America. And you want to know why people are so discontent? In
    part, it is because a few powerful people can send cascades of
    money into our system. The ads they put on TV have nothing to
    do with the issues they care about.
        And you, frankly, are aiding and abetting at the SEC
    because we cannot do everything. And we know that our House
    Republicans--Mitch McConnell is insisting that this stay. They
    gain from this. And it is short-term gain because, in part,
    people become so discontent with the powers that be that they
    not only go against the--all establishment, they go against the
    Republican establishment. Witness the last election, the last
    primary.
        And I just do not get it. I just do not get why
    corporations that give money should not tell their
    shareholders. These are major decisions. They have effects on
    the corporations. If Exxon--and I am just picking one. I have
    no idea what they do undisclosed, but if they put a ton of
    money of undisclosed into the Chamber of Commerce to fight
    global warming--let us just assume that--their shareholders
    have a right to know they may be making a bad decision.
        I think you are hurting America. You are hurting America.
    And I know you can stay in your narrow little box and say,
    well, the rules of the SEC are limited, and this and that.
    First, a lot of people do not agree with that--most people.
    Second, the public. I mean, I know Senator Shelby said 1.2
    million petitions is a small amount compared to the population
    of America. That is true, but how many other issues have you
    gotten 1.2 million petitioners calling you? And I wish you
    would change your mind. I am just so disappointed, so
    disappointed, because every one of our commissioners should be
    a citizen. They have to do things within the law. This is
    within the law and you have made the decision not to go
    forward.
        So let me just ask you this. This is a relevant question.
    Senator Menendez touched on this issue, but I want to come back
    to it. John Coates analyzed that the SEC, by this--we were--the
    Republican leadership insisted that this provision be put in
    the bill. It shows you--the provision that says--you know, that
    says that Congress cannot touch what you do. But it was not
    that explicit. And as I understand it, it only explicitly
    prohibited the SEC from finalizing, issuing, or implementing
    such a rule during this appropriated period.
        So do you disagree with Coates' analysis? And second, if
    you do not disagree with his interpretation, will you add this
    issue to the SEC's agenda?
        Ms. White. I have not studied his interpretation of it. Let
    me just say that I respect you enormously, and your views----
        Senator Schumer. It is a mutual respect we have.
        Ms. White. ----enormously. And I also deeply respect the
    views on all sides of this issue. I explained earlier what the
    SEC was looking at when I came in, and so forth. I will not
    repeat that or what I have prioritized for the benefit of
    investors and our markets since I have been there, although I
    certainly made a commitment to advance the mandated rulemakings
    and other mission-critical issues.
        But having said that, I have also talked about the avenues
    for shareholders to bring this issue to their companies, which
    is in our rules, the Rule 14a-8 shareholder proposal route. The
    average approval rate for those petitions last year was about
    26 percent. I also certainly applaud those companies that are
    voluntarily providing the information, which they, by the way,
    are doing in greater numbers, like----
        Senator Schumer. What else can you do to encourage
    companies to do it voluntarily? I understand the worst ones are
    not going to do it. The big violators are not going to do it.
        Ms. White. There is a report that came out in October of
    2015 basically showing that over half of the S&P 500 now makes
    disclosures of their political spending. And I think 80-plus
    percent have policies and procedures governing their spending.
    So that information is certainly voluntarily being provided.
    Obviously our rules could never reach the Koch brothers because
    it is not a public company at all.
        Senator Schumer. That is good.
        Ms. White. So it is not as if the SEC our rules--is the
    solution to campaign finance reform. I understand you are not
    suggesting they are, and I take your point. But essentially,
    the subject of doing a rulemaking has actually not been on the
    SEC's agenda before me or after me.
        Senator Schumer. No, but what I am asking you is----
        Ms. White. Yes.
        Senator Schumer. ----since you are not prohibited from
    starting the process, would you be willing to start the
    process?
        Ms. White. Well, again, the subject is not on our Reg Flex
    Agenda now.
        Senator Schumer. I know.
        Ms. White. It is not one of the priorities that we are
    advancing. So do I get to that before I get to what could we do
    or what could not we do under the appropriations language?
    Obviously the appropriations language is there with its
    prohibitions.
        Our Corporation Finance staff did look at this, actually
    before the item was put on the Reg Flex Agenda in late 2012,
    just to research and consider whether to recommend a proposed
    rule, not to advance a proposed rule. And they did a lot----
        Senator Schumer. I just----
        Ms. White. ----a lot of work on that.
        Senator Schumer. My time is expired----
        Ms. White. OK.
        Senator Schumer. ----but I am explicitly asking you a
    question, which is, are you willing to start the process? That
    is still allowed by--even with the legislation that we passed.
        Ms. White. I have not researched the legal issue, but the
    answer is that it is not a subject that is on our current Reg
    Flex Agenda----
        Senator Schumer. OK. I would----
        Ms. White. ----because of my priorities and the priorities
    of the Commission.
        Senator Schumer. I know my colleague is here. I would just
    say to you, your priorities are out of line with what corporate
    America needs and America needs. And I hope when you go to bed
    late at night you will think about that, because our country is
    basically being steered in an awful direction by a narrow few
    wealthy people. At the very least there ought to be disclosure.
        Chairman Shelby. Senator Heitkamp.
        Senator Heitkamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you, Chair White, for appearing. As you know, I
    have been working on a number of provisions within the Homeland
    Security and Governmental Affairs Committee regarding
    supervision of independent agency rulemaking, obviously still
    concerned that we have been unable to effectuate the
    implementation of a longstanding executive order in legislation
    and have met, as you know, with great resistance from all the
    independent agencies.
        That is not going to be the basis of my question, but I
    wanted just to remind you that when we met, you offered to sit
    down and actually have a conversation about this, because I
    think there is a growing amount of concern in the regulated
    community that there is not the kinds of safeguards that other
    rulemaking have. And so I want to just remind you that I have
    not forgotten about that.
        But I want to ask you about SEC rulemaking and small
    business. As you know, Senator Heller and I introduced a
    bipartisan bill that would create an Office of Small Business
    within the--a small business advocate within the SEC. I am
    wondering if you have had a chance to review that legislation
    and if you have an opinion.
        Ms. White. Well, first let me say that I think we have
    really prioritized the interests of, perspectives, if I can say
    that, and special needs of small businesses since pretty much
    the day I arrived at the Commission, and we have taken a number
    of steps.
        We were mentioning the tick size pilot before. We actually
    have, in our Division of Corporation Finance, an Office of
    Small Business Policy, which responds to a thousand-plus,
    sometimes nearly 2,000 requests for questions like how do I
    navigate the rules, how do I do this, how do I do that? They
    look at all of our rules from the perspective of how is this
    going to impact small businesses? So I think it is a very
    highly functioning unit.
        I am an advocate for small business so, conceptually, I am
    all in favor of any advocate for small business because they
    are so important to our economy. I worry about--and I know our
    staff has given some technical assistance on this--but I worry,
    if the bill is adopted, that we might fragment or dilute the
    efforts that we have within the SEC.
        Senator Heitkamp. Chair White, I would submit that a lot of
    small business feel like they are being left behind and their
    capitalization is restricted in ways that they do not
    understand. And it is so critically important that they feel
    like they are part of the economic fabric as well. And so I
    think creating an advocacy so there is somebody there, and not
    just kind of the good will of the Chair and the good will of
    the rest of the Commission, to basically be that voice that is
    heard on small business concerns. So----
        Ms. White. I certainly understand the priority on it, if I
    can say it that way. I think that is why we have the office we
    have, but I also understand the priority that you are putting
    on it in this way, as well.
        Senator Heitkamp. And I do not know if you have had a
    chance to answer questions about the Department of Labor
    fiduciary rule yet.
        Ms. White. Here and there I have, yes.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Heitkamp. Yeah, I bet you have, so I will just kind
    of read the testimony there rather than reiterate what has been
    said.
        The SEC is credited--has been credited for developing and
    adopting a March 2012 Current Guidance on Economic Analysis, an
    SEC rulemaking which emphasizes the importance of rigorous
    economic analysis and rulemaking, including relevant cost
    benefits. It is generally recognized that accurately estimating
    the benefits of regulation is more difficult than determining
    the costs, whether or not they can be quantified or monetized.
        What lessons learned, if any, can you provide on SEC's
    efforts to justify regulations, especially when these
    limitations exist?
        Ms. White. Well, we obviously adopted and implemented our
    Economic Guidance. I think it was March of 2012. We take the
    cost-benefit economic analysis of our rules and pre-our rules
    quite seriously. And I think it is working very well. We have
    actually received compliments on the thoroughness of it and the
    pointedness of it, if I can say it that way.
        So I think it is enormously important to do. And I will not
    say much about it but you alluded to the bills that are pending
    to add more review and other factors. What I worry about there
    is the compromise of independence and adding burdens that, at
    least at the SEC, I think we are discharging what you want us
    to.
        Senator Heitkamp. Chair White, I am running out of time,
    but I just want to reiterate that, you know, we can all have
    good intentions but sometimes we need a cop on the beat who is
    going to be reviewing the work.
        And so that is really what we are asking for in that
    legislation. And we will continue to talk about what makes the
    independent agencies comfortable as we move forward, but I have
    not given up on my challenge of making sure that there is some
    oversight that assists this body in terms of oversight on
    independent agency regulations.
        So, thank you so much for appearing and thank you for your
    work. I think if you have not been thanked already, as you know
    I am greatly appreciative that you have stepped up and taken
    the chair.
        Ms. White. Thank you very much. Thank you.
        Chairman Shelby. Senator Brown.
        Senator Brown. I have one last question. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        First, one real brief comment. I join Schumer--Senator
    Schumer's plea with you to move on that. I think it is--I think
    there is a huge majority of the country, people paying
    attention, that want you to do that, and so many Members of
    this Committee too.
        Along with other members of both houses, I sent you a
    letter in March asking you to consider rulemaking pursuant to a
    petition that would provide enhanced disclosure of the
    diversity of board nominees. In your response, you indicated
    you had asked your staff to look at the nature of the
    disclosure companies are providing. Could you give this
    Committee an update on what you are doing?
        Ms. White. Yes. And this is an example of an existing rule
    that we have that investors have basically indicated is not
    providing them useful enough information on diversity. There is
    no definition of diversity, et cetera. So those concerns
    resonate with me and I have had the Division of Corporation
    Finance work on what the disclosures have been in the past,
    what they are now, and how we might enhance that rule. They
    have not completed that process, but they are well into it, and
    I expect them to make a recommendation to me fairly soon.
        Senator Brown. Please keep me appraised of those findings.
        Ms. White. Absolutely.
        Senator Brown. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Shelby. We appreciate your appearance today here,
    and we look forward to some more. Thank you.
        Ms. White. Thank you very much. Thank you.
        Chairman Shelby. The meeting is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 10:57 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
        [Prepared statements and responses to written questions
    supplied for the record follow:]
                      PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARY JO WHITE
                   Chair, Securities and Exchange Commission
                                 June 14, 2016

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

           RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF CHAIRMAN SHELBY
                           FROM MARY JO WHITE

    Q.1. With respect to delegations of authority:
        Are all delegations of authority made public? If so, please
    provide a complete list of all delegations or a Web address
    where that information can be obtained.
        How many delegations of authority are currently in place?
        Once the Commission has voted to delegate its authority to
    staff, how are you and your fellow Commissioners made aware of
    the staff's use of that authority?
        If the Chair is recused on a specific matter, who is
    accountable for the staff's use of delegated authority?
        Are there any formal or informal delegations of authority
    to staff not directly named in the delegation of authority, and
    if so, how many? Please provide a specific list of any such
    formal and informal delegation.
        Would you support an SEC review of existing delegations,
    including an analysis of their appropriateness?
        How many SEC staff have the ability by means of delegated
    authority to issue subpoenas?

    A.1. In light of the breadth of the Commission's extensive
    responsibilities, section 4A(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
    of 1934 (Exchange Act) authorizes the Commission ``to delegate,
    by published order or rule, any of its functions to a division
    of the Commission, an individual Commissioner, an
    administrative law judge, or an employee or employee board,
    including functions with respect to hearing, determining,
    ordering, certifying, reporting, or otherwise acting as to any
    work, business, or matter.'' The section prohibits the
    delegation of the function of general rulemaking or the making
    of any rule pursuant to section 19(c) of the Exchange Act.
        The following table provides links to the Commission's
    delegations of authority that appear in the Code of Federal
    Regulations:
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        In addition, the Commission has delegated to an individual
    Commissioner, designated as the Commission's ``duty officer''
    by the Chairman from time to time, all of the functions of the
    Commission, other than general rulemaking or the making of any
    rule pursuant to section 19(c) of the Exchange Act. 17 CFR
    200.43.
        To facilitate the performance of delegated functions,
    section 4B of the Exchange Act authorizes the Chair to assign
    personnel to perform functions that have been delegated by the
    Commission to Commission personnel. Specifically, section 4B
    provides that ``there are hereby transferred from the
    Commission to the Chairman of the Commission the functions of
    the Commission with respect to the assignment of Commission
    personnel . . . to perform such functions as may have been
    delegated by the Commission to the Commission personnel . . .
    pursuant to section 4A of this title.'' Under this authority,
    the Chair has assigned specified staff, under the direction of
    the person with delegated authority, to perform certain of the
    functions that have been delegated by the Commission.
        Among the delegations of authority, the Commission has
    delegated to the Director of the Division of Enforcement the
    authority to designate officers empowered to issue subpoenas in
    the course of investigations instituted by the Commission
    pursuant to section 19(c) of the Securities Act of 1933,
    section 21(b) of the Exchange Act, section 42(b) of the
    Investment Company Act of 1940, and section 209(b) of the
    Investment Advisers Act of 1940. The Commission has delegated
    similar authority to the Director of the Division of Trading
    and Markets and the General Counsel with respect to
    investigations instituted pursuant to section 21 of the
    Exchange Act. Pursuant to section 4B, the Chair has assigned
    specified persons to perform these delegated functions under
    the direction of the Director of the Division of Enforcement,
    the Director of the Division of Trading and Markets, and the
    General Counsel, as applicable.
        The staff is accountable for any exercise of delegated
    authority through the statutory power of any one Commissioner
    to request a review of an action taken by delegated authority.
    Specifically, section 4A(b) of the Exchange Act provides that
    the Commission retains a discretionary right to review any
    action taken by delegated authority, upon its own initiative or
    upon the petition of a party to or intervenor in such action,
    within such time and in such manner as the Commission by rule
    shall prescribe. Under the Commission's rules, the Commission
    may, on its own initiative, order review of any action made by
    delegated authority at any time, except that where there are
    one or more parties to the matter, such review shall not be
    ordered more than 10 days after the action. 17 CFR 201.431(c).
    The vote of one member of the Commission, conveyed to the
    Secretary, is sufficient to bring a matter before the
    Commission for review. In addition, a party to an action made
    pursuant to delegated authority or a person aggrieved by an
    action taken by delegated authority may seek Commission review
    of the action by filing a written notice of intention to
    petition for review. 17 CFR 201.430.
        Given the breadth and scope of the Commission's vast
    responsibilities, and the need for timely action and responses
    to market developments, I believe that the framework and
    subject of staff delegations have been appropriately drawn by
    the Commission. But, as I have previously advised my fellow
    Commissioners, I am receptive to reconsidering particular
    delegations of authority that may no longer be appropriate, and
    to considering whether there are new areas where additional
    delegations may be appropriate.

    Q.2. As a follow up to my question at the hearing, please
    provide specific examples to the following question:

            You have often stated that the SEC is an independent
            agency. While one can expect some split votes because
            of the way the Commission is set up, there have been
            many party-line 3-2 and 2-1 votes under your
            chairmanship. By comparison, according to the press,
            former Chairman Breeden never had a 3-2 vote, and
            former Chairman Levitt rarely would take a matter to a
            vote unless he knew he had a 5-0 vote. Are there any
            areas that you can work on cooperatively with the other
            two Commissioners to reach a unanimous decision? Please
            provide specific examples.

    A.2. While I believe that it is generally preferable for
    Commission decisions to be unanimous--and we strive for that--
    each Commissioner brings his or her unique perspective to
    matters that come before the agency, and I cannot predict, nor
    should I dictate, how each member will vote on each matter that
    comes before the Commission. And, as I indicated at the
    hearing, a number of our nonunanimous votes during my tenure
    have occurred on mandated rulemakings to implement certain of
    the provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act, on which Commissioners
    continue to have very different views. Nevertheless, during my
    tenure at the SEC, the Commission has reached unanimous
    decisions on the majority of matters that have come before it,
    including on rulemakings.
        Most recently, for example, the Commission voted
    unanimously in August to approve final rules to enhance the
    information reported by investment advisers and rule amendments
    to provide authorities with access to data obtained by
    security-based swap data repositories. The month before, at the
    Commission's open meeting on July 13, 2016, the Commission
    voted unanimously to approve all four rulemakings under
    consideration, including:

        final rules and guidance under Title VII of the
            Dodd-Frank Act related to the reporting and
            dissemination of security-based swap transaction data;

        proposed rules that for the first time would
            require broker-dealers to disclose specific data
            regarding order handling information;

        proposed amendments to update certain disclosure
            provisions by eliminating redundant, overlapping,
            outdated, or superseded requirements due to changes in
            rules, accounting principles, and technology; and

        amendments to the Commission's rules of practice
            applicable to administrative proceedings.

        This year, the Commission also has voted unanimously for,
    among other things:

        proposed rules for investment adviser business
            continuity and transition plans;

        final rules requiring security-based swap dealers
            and major security-based swap participants to provide
            trade acknowledgments and to verify those trade
            acknowledgments in security-based swap transactions;

        proposed rules to revise the property disclosure
            requirements for mining registrants;

        proposed rules to amend the definition of ``smaller
            reporting company'' as used in our rules and
            regulations;

        proposed amendments to address the covered broker-
            dealer provisions under Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act;

        final rules governing certain security-based swap
            transactions connected with a non-U.S. person's dealing
            activity in the United States;

        final rules for changes to Exchange Act
            registration requirements to implement Title V and
            Title VI of the JOBS Act;

        a concept release on business and financial
            disclosures required by Regulation S-K; and

        interim final rules amending certain issuer
            disclosure forms (Forms 10-K, S-1, and F-1) and
            providing for a summary of Form 10-K, to implement
            provisions of the Fixing America's Surface
            Transportation (FAST) Act.

        I also note that this is only a partial list--since I have
    been Chair, there have been many other Commission matters,
    including the vast majority of votes on initiating or settling
    enforcement matters, on which the Commission has acted
    unanimously.

    Q.3. As a follow up to my question at the hearing, please
    provide specific examples to the following question:

            There have been concerns raised by the public as well
            as Members of this Committee about repeated violations
            by SEC registered entities. Two years ago, a former SEC
            Commissioner stated that, with respect to the most
            egregious and repeated violations of our securities
            laws and regulations, ``we need to ask ourselves a
            fundamental question: should the violating entity
            retain the privilege of participating in our capital
            markets?'' In your opinion, when is it appropriate for
            the SEC to exercise its ability to deregister an
            entity? Please provide a specific example of what you
            would consider to be a valid cause for deregistration.

    A.3. The SEC has broad authority under the Securities Exchange
    Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and Investment Advisers Act of 1940
    (Advisers Act) to sanction regulated entities for a variety of
    misconduct if it finds that the sanction is in the public
    interest. If a regulated entity engages in misconduct, such as
    willfully violating, or willfully aiding and abetting a
    violation of, the securities laws, or is enjoined or convicted
    of certain specified offenses, the Commission is authorized to
    pursue a variety of sanctions against that entity. These
    sanctions include suspending or revoking a regulated entity's
    registration. See Section 15(b)(4) of the Exchange Act and
    Section 203(e) of the Advisers Act. Revoking a registered
    entity's registration is the most severe sanction available to
    the Commission.
        The Commission must justify any sanction it imposes by
    finding that the sanction is necessary to protect the public
    interest. In determining whether a sanction is in the public
    interest--including revoking a registered entity's
    registration--the Commission looks to a broad range of factors.
    The factors are: (1) the egregiousness of the respondent's
    actions; (2) whether the violations were isolated or recurrent;
    (3) the degree of scienter; (4) the sincerity of the
    respondent's assurances against future violations; (5) the
    respondent's recognition of the wrongful nature of his or her
    conduct; and (6) the likelihood that the respondent's
    occupation will present opportunities for future violations.
    See Steadman v. SEC, 603 F.2d 1126, 1140 (5th Cir. 1979), aff'd
    on other grounds, 450 U.S. 91 (1981). The determination is a
    flexible one and no single factor is controlling. A Commission
    Order revoking an entity's registration is made in an
    administrative proceeding in which the entity may contest the
    allegations made against it and the proposed sanctions. The
    Commission's determination to revoke an entity's registration
    is appealable to the Federal appeals courts.
        The Commission has revoked the registration of registered
    entities in cases involving egregious misconduct, such as
    recurring or systematic violations of the antifraud provisions.
    For example, the Commission recently issued an opinion revoking
    an investment adviser's registration and barring its principal
    for recurring violations of the Advisers Act's antifraud
    provisions. See In the Matter of Edgar R. Page and PageOne
    Financial, Inc., Admin. Proc. File No. 3-13037, Advisers Act
    Release No. 4400 (May 27, 2016), https://www.sec.gov/
    litigation/opinions/2016/ia-4400.pdf. In determining that the
    revocation of the investment adviser's registration was in the
    public interest, the Commission noted the egregiousness and
    recurring nature of the conduct and found that the firm
    presented a significant risk of future misconduct. See id. at
    15-17. \1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         \1\ See also ``In the Matter of J.S. Oliver Capital Mgmt. L.P.,
    and Ian O. Mausner, Admin.'' Proc. File No. 3-15446, Exchange Act
    Release No. 78098 (June 17, 2016), https://www.sec.gov/litigation/
    opinions/2016/33-10100.pdf (Commission revoked investment adviser's
    registration and barred its principal where respondents repeatedly
    violated the antifraud provisions by systematically fraudulently
    allocating trades and failing to disclose material information to
    investors).

    Q.4. In a speech earlier this year you stated that the SEC is
    ``engaged with our fellow financial and consumer protection
    regulators, including the Department of Treasury, the Federal
    Reserve, the CFPB, OCC, FTC, and FDIC, to develop a broader
    understanding of the online marketplace lending industry, and
    regulatory initiatives that would enhance investor, consumer
    and borrower protections.'' Please explain what role the SEC
    has had in developing regulatory initiatives in the online
    marketplace lending sphere and describe the SEC's future plans
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    in this area.

    A.4. As in other subject areas, the Commission's role in the
    area of online marketplace lending is the protection of
    investors in connection with the offer and sale of securities.
    Obtaining money from investors to fund borrower loans through
    an online lending platform involves the offer and sale of
    securities. The Commission does not oversee the lending
    activities of online lenders and extensions of credit.
        Commission staff has engaged in discussions with other
    agencies and the Treasury Department to keep apprised of
    developments in the marketplace and to enhance others'
    understanding of how the Federal securities laws apply to these
    activities. I support the continuation of the interagency staff
    working group to help determine whether regulatory initiatives
    would be appropriate.

    Q.5. I have previously raised concerns about the accountability
    and transparency of the Financial Stability Board (FSB). The
    FSB is not a U.S. regulator, it is not accountable to Congress
    or the American people, and yet it issues directives that U.S.
    regulators often adopt in some form. As the Chair of the SEC,
    you are a member of the FSB Plenary. Please provide a list of
    all FSB Plenary meetings and any other FSB meeting that you
    have been invited to attend or participate in, annotating which
    ones you attended and/or participated in person, telephonically
    or not at all. For the last category, please provide the names
    and titles of SEC staff that participated or attended in your
    place. If you are unable to attend an FSB meeting in person,
    have you considered sending another Commissioner, and if not,
    why not?

    A.5. The FSB has a number of committees whose meetings I,
    another Commissioner, or senior SEC staff attend. With the
    exception of the first meeting after I joined the SEC held in
    April 2013, I have personally participated in all of the
    meetings of the FSB Steering Committee, which is the leadership
    group within the FSB. Prior to my tenure as Chair, Chairman
    Shapiro had Commissioner Elisse Walter attend such meetings, as
    she did the April 2013 meeting. In another change from prior
    practice, I or, at my request, another Commissioner has also
    personally attended nearly all board meetings of IOSCO. With
    respect to meetings of the other committees of the FSB,
    including the Plenary, I have continued the existing practice
    of having SEC senior staff attend.
        Members of the SEC staff attend the FSB Plenary and
    meetings of the standing committees in which the SEC
    participates, which are: (i) the Standing Committee on
    Supervisory and Regulatory Cooperation (SRC); (ii) the Standing
    Committee on Assessment of Vulnerabilities (SCAV); and (iii)
    the Standing Committee on Standards Implementation (SCSI).
        Currently, meetings of the Plenary and the SRC are attended
    by Paul Leder (Leder), Director of the Office of International
    Affairs (OIA), and meetings of the SCAV, which the SEC joined
    in 2015, are attended by Mark Flannery (Flannery), Director of
    the Division of Economic and Risk Analysis (DERA). Meetings of
    the SCSI are attended by Katherine Martin (Martin), Associate
    Director in the Office of International Affairs.
        Below is a list of the FSB Steering Committee, Plenary, and
    standing committee meetings I, another Commissioner, or an SEC
    staff member attended during my time as SEC Chair. Meetings
    where attendance was by phone are noted by an asterisk.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Q.6. A recent news article stated that ``passive investing is
    taking over the money-management world'' and as a result,
    ``mutual funds are facing extinction.'' Is the SEC studying
    this issue, and if so, when do you expect the results of that
    study? If not, what is the SEC doing to permit innovation and
    competition to thrive in this space? Do you anticipate to have
    any legislative recommendations for Congress to consider?

    A.6. The Commission and its staff generally monitor trends
    within the asset management industry, including those related
    to mutual funds and exchange-traded funds (ETFs). Recent
    industry data suggests an increasing trend towards passive
    investing. While overall investor demand for mutual funds
    declined in 2015, industry data indicates that demand for both
    index-based mutual funds and index-based ETFs has increased.
    \2\ The Commission staff generally does not believe that this
    recent trend toward passive investing--which may or may not
    continue over the long term--will eliminate the role in the
    investment company marketplace for mutual funds and ETFs,
    whether passively or actively managed, as each product line
    presents its own relative set of advantages and disadvantages
    to different investor groups.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         \2\ See generally, Lipperus U.S. Fund Flows, http://
    www.lipperusfundflows.com; Morningstar Direct U.S. Asset Flows Update:
    Data through Dec. 31, 2015, U.S. Mutual Funds and Exchange-Traded
    Products (Jan. 15, 2016), http://corporate.morningstar.com/US/
    documents/AssetFlows/AssetFlowsJan2016.pdf; and Investment Company
    Institute, 2016 Investment Company Factbook 26-30 (2016), https://
    www.ici.org/pdf/2016_factbook.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Commission's mission is to protect investors, maintain
    fair, orderly, and efficient markets, and facilitate capital
    formation. Consistent with its mission, the Commission
    continues to evaluate and, as appropriate, approve requests for
    exemptive relief for new and novel investment products,
    including ETFs. The Commission evaluates all exemptive
    application requests to operate such investment products under
    the standards prescribed by the Investment Company Act of
    1940--that is, such exemption must be necessary or appropriate
    in the public interest and consistent with the protection of
    investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and
    provisions of the Investment Company Act. The Commission has
    approved, over the years, a number of exemptive applications
    under this statutory exemptive authority, including
    applications submitted by sponsors to operate various types of
    actively managed ETFs.
        I do not anticipate the Commission making legislative
    recommendations regarding ETFs at this time.
                                    ------

            RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR BROWN
                           FROM MARY JO WHITE

    Q.1. At the June 14 hearing, you were asked about the
    legislation introduced in the House of Representatives
    regarding Business Development Companies (BDCs) and your
    investor protection concerns with respect to the changes that
    would increase the leverage used by BDCs. Specifically, you
    were asked why you are particularly concerned by the increase
    in leverage for BDCs when investors have access to other
    investments with leverage, including securities purchased on
    margin, listed options, or shares of banks that operate on a
    leveraged basis.
        For clarification, please describe any limitations on the
    purchase of those investments, as well as any limitations on
    similar instruments such as 3x leveraged exchange traded funds.
    Please include in your discussion any regulatory requirements
    or guidance, or stock exchange regulations, such as options or
    margin account approval, or limitations on margining low-priced
    or illiquid shares, that broker-dealers must comply with or
    consider for clients who wish to trade those instruments.
        In addition, you mentioned that BDC shares are
    predominately held by retail investors. Based on the most
    recent data available, please provide the portion of investors
    in BDC shares and listed options that are ``retail'' investors.
    Also, please provide data, to the extent available, of the
    percentage of retail investors that have brokerage accounts
    authorized to use margin. Finally, please discuss any investor
    protection concerns that might exist in an initial offering of
    BDC shares aimed at retail investors.

    A.1. As entities regulated under the Investment Company Act of
    1940 (1940 Act), BDCs, as well as other types of funds, such as
    mutual funds, closed-end funds, and exchange-traded funds
    (ETFs), are subject to statutory provisions and regulations
    that are designed to protect investors. There are also various
    regulatory requirements with which investment advisers and
    broker-dealers must comply when making a recommendation in
    connection with a securities transaction or investment strategy
    involving securities, including those involving investments in
    BDCs or ETFs and those using options or a margin account.
        Investment Companies. The 1940 Act was enacted, in part, to
    provide ``small investors'' with ``a regulated institution for
    the investment of their savings.'' \1\ Many of the 1940 Act's
    provisions correspond to abuses that contributed to the rapid
    decline in the value of closed-end investment companies at the
    end of the 1920s. Section 18 (which is applicable to BDCs), for
    example, was intended to protect investors from abuses
    associated with complex capital structures, including excessive
    leverage. \2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         \1\ See H.R. Rep. No. 76-2639, at 10 (1940). See also S. Rep. No.
    76-1775, at 12 (1940). Because the Act was enacted, in part, to provide
    ``small investors'' with ``a regulated institution for the investment
    of their savings,'' the 1940 Act includes far more extensive
    substantive regulation--e.g., prohibitions on transactions between an
    investment company and its affiliates--than the other Federal
    securities laws.
         \2\ The section balances the interests of fund shareholders and
    the holders of senior securities--e.g., preferred stock or debt
    securities issued by the fund. Section 1(b) of the 1940 Act states that
    the national interest is adversely affected ``when investment companies
    by excessive borrowing and the issuance of excessive amounts of senior
    securities increase unduly the speculative character of their junior
    securities [i.e., common stock].'' 15 U.S.C. 80a-1(b). Section 1(b)
    further states that the Act is to be interpreted ``to mitigate and, so
    far as is feasible, to eliminate the conditions enumerated in this
    section which adversely affect the national public interest and the
    interest of investors.'' Id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Congress created BDCs in 1980 as a specialized type of
    closed-end investment company operated for the purpose of
    providing capital for small, growing, and financially troubled
    domestic operating companies. Congress recognized the need to
    ``avoid compromising needed protections for investors in the
    name of reducing regulatory burdens.'' \3\ Under the 1940 Act,
    the regulation of BDCs is the same as the regulation of
    registered closed-end funds with modifications that generally
    allow BDCs greater operating flexibility. \4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         \3\ See H.R. Rep. No. 96-1341, at 22 (1980); S. Rep. No. 96-958,
    at 5 (1980).
         \4\ A BDC, for example, may issue more debt securities as a
    percentage of total assets than other closed-end funds, may issue debt
    in multiple classes, may issue long-term options and warrants, and is
    subject to relaxed regulation of transactions with affiliates. See
    Investment Company Act 61(a)(1), 61(a)(3), and 57(d), 15 U.S.C.
    80a-60(a)(1), -60(a)(2), -(56)(d).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        From my perspective, increasing leverage for BDCs would
    give rise to significant investor protection concerns. Section
    18 of the 1940 Act requires open-end funds (including mutual
    funds and ETFs) and closed-end funds to comply with 300 percent
    asset coverage requirements. \5\ In comparison, BDCs must
    comply with a 200 percent asset coverage requirement for senior
    securities representing indebtedness (i.e., debt) and senior
    securities that are stock (i.e., preferred stock). \6\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         \5\ Open-end funds are prohibited from issuing or selling any
    ``senior security'' other than borrowing from a bank and must maintain
    300 percent asset coverage after any such borrowing. Investment Company
    Act 18(f)(1), 15 U.S.C. 80a-18(f)(1). Section 5(a)(1) of the 1940 Act
    defines ``open-end company'' as ``a management company which is
    offering for sale or has outstanding any redeemable security of which
    it is the issuer.'' 15 U.S.C. 80a-5(a)(1). Closed-end funds registered
    under the 1940 Act are also required to have 300 percent asset coverage
    for debt, but their ability to issue senior securities representing
    indebtedness is not limited to bank borrowings, and they may issue
    senior securities that are stock, subject to certain limitations and a
    more liberal 200 percent asset coverage requirement, with both asset
    coverage requirements being measured at the time of issuance. Unlike
    open-end funds, BDCs and closed-end funds are required to maintain the
    asset coverage at the time of issuance of senior securities and are
    subject to limits on distributions to holders of the common stock and
    repurchases of common stock if the asset coverage requirements are not
    met. Investment Company Act 18(a)(1)(A), 15 U.S.C. 80a-18(a)(1)(A).
    Section 5(a)(2) of the Investment Company Act defines ``closed-end
    company'' as ``any management company other than an open-end company.''
    15 U.S.C. 80a-5(a)(2).
         \6\ See Investment Company Act 61(a)(1), 15 U.S.C. 80a-60(a)(1).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        For example, a BDC with assets worth $100 and no
    liabilities can borrow $100 for $200 in total assets. If the
    value of those assets subsequently falls 25 percent, then the
    BDC holds assets worth $150 but still owes the lender $100.
    Thus, the BDC's shareholders' equity dropped from $100 to $50.
    Shareholders' equity declined by 50 percent although the value
    of the BDC's assets declined only 25 percent, and the asset
    coverage fell from 200 percent to 150 percent.
        Reducing the required asset coverage, for example to 150
    percent, would permit that same BDC to borrow $200, effectively
    doubling its leverage, for $300 in total assets. If the value
    of those assets subsequently falls 25 percent, then the BDC
    holds assets worth $225 but owes the lender $200. Thus, the
    BDC's shareholders' equity dropped from $100 to $25.
    Shareholders' equity declined by 75 percent although the value
    of the BDC's assets declined by 25 percent, and the asset
    coverage fell from 150 percent to 112.5 percent.
        Increasing BDC leverage increases the potential losses for
    both holders of BDC common stock and BDC debt and preferred
    stock. My concern is heightened because BDC common stock is
    predominantly held by retail investors. Retail investors
    account for nearly 70 percent of BDC common stock ownership.
    \7\ In addition, retail investors account for an unknown
    percentage of debt securities issued by BDCs. \8\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         \7\ This calculation is an average, weighted by total assets, of
    72 active BDCs with securities registered under the Securities Act of
    1933. Of this number, 21 are nontraded BDCs, and 51 are traded on
    securities exchanges or over the counter. Commission staff calculated
    this average internally using publicly available information on
    institutional ownership. The institutional ownership percentage for
    each BDC was subtracted from 100 percent to determine the retail
    ownership percentage. A recent report on the BDC industry states that
    the average institutional ownership of 46 exchange traded BDCs is 24.9
    percent. This percentage is a simple average of the institutional
    ownership percentage for each of the 46 BDCs and excludes ownership by
    brokers and private bank/wealth management firms, as reported in
    FactSet, a data service. See BDC Industry Investment Banking Weekly
    Newsletter (Raymond James), July 15, 2016.
         \8\ For example, since 2012, over a dozen BDCs have issued ``baby
    bonds'' (i.e., fixed income securities issued in small denominations
    and traded on a securities exchange) in $25 denominations. This
    information is based on Commission staff review of Form N-2 filings by
    BDCs with the Commission. BDCs register under the Securities Act of
    1933 public offerings of their securities on Form N-2.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Use of leverage in funds continues to be a significant
    focus for the Commission and staff. In December 2015, the
    Commission proposed a new rule regarding the use of derivatives
    by mutual funds, ETFs, closed-end funds, and BDCs. \9\ SEC
    staff is also focusing resources on examinations of ETFs'
    compliance with applicable regulatory requirements, sales
    strategies, trading practices, and disclosures, including
    excessive portfolio concentration, primary and secondary market
    trading risks, adequacy of risk disclosure, and suitability,
    particularly in niche or leveraged/inverse ETFs. \10\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         \9\ See ``Use of Derivatives by Registered Investment Companies
    and Business Development Companies'', Investment Company Act Release
    No. 31933, 80 FR 80883 (Dec. 28, 2015), https://www.sec.gov/rules/
    proposed/2015/ic-31933.pdf.
         \10\ See ``Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations, SEC,
    Examination Priorities for 2016'' (Jan. 11, 2016), https://www.sec.gov/
    about/offices/ocie/national-examination-program-priorities-2016.pdf.
    Leveraged ETFs are highly specialized investment vehicles that seek to
    replicate the performance of an underlying index each day. For example,
    a 3x ETF is designed to produce a daily return equal to three times the
    return of a specified index. Thus, a 3x ETF can magnify the amount of
    an investor's gain or loss. Leveraged ETFs are designed to achieve
    their stated objectives on a daily basis; they are not designed for buy
    and hold investors. See ``SEC Office of Investor Education and Advocacy
    and Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Investor Alert on
    Leveraged and Inverse ETFs: Specialized Products With Extra Risks for
    Buy-and-Hold Investors'' (Aug. 18, 2009), https://www.sec.gov/investor/
    pubs/leveragedetfs-alert.htm.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Investment Advisers and Broker-Dealers. Investment advisers
    and broker-dealers must comply with various regulatory
    requirements when making a recommendation in connection with a
    securities transaction or investment strategy involving
    securities, including strategies utilizing derivatives and
    leverage. For example, investment advisers must make a
    reasonable determination that the investment advice provided is
    suitable for the client based on the client's financial
    situation and investment objectives. \11\ Similarly, a broker-
    dealer recommending particular investments has an obligation to
    only make suitable securities recommendations to their
    customers, taking into account the particular circumstances and
    investment goals of each investor. \12\ Heightened suitability
    obligations, as well as enhanced account opening requirements,
    apply to listed options. \13\ In addition, FINRA guidance
    reminds members that leveraged ETFs typically are unsuitable
    for retail investors who plan to hold them for longer than one
    trading session, particularly in volatile markets, \14\ and
    that members have certain obligations in connection with the
    sale or recommendation of complex investment products,
    including derivatives. \15\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         \11\ See ``Status of Investment Advisory Programs under the
    Investment Company Act of 1940'', Investment Company Act Release No.
    22579, 62 FR 15098 (Mar. 31, 1997), https://www.sec.gov/rules/final/ic-
    22579.txt (citing ``Suitability of Investment Advice Provided by
    Investment Advisers'', Investment Advisers Act Release No. 1406, 59 FR
    13464 (Mar. 22, 1994)).
         \12\ See, e.g., FINRA, ``Regulatory Notice 12-55: Suitability''
    (Dec. 2012), http://www.finra.org/sites/default/files/NoticeDocument/
    p197435.pdf (providing guidance on FINRA's suitability rule); FINRA,
    ``Regulatory Notice 11-25: Know Your Customer and Suitability'' (May
    2011), http://www.finra.org/sites/default/files/NoticeDocument/
    p123701.pdf (providing guidance on new FINRA Rule 2111). In addition,
    there are enhanced suitability and disclosure obligations in connection
    with penny stock transactions. See Exchange Act Section 15(h), 15
    U.S.C. 78o(h) and Exchange Act Rules 3a51-1 and 15g-1 through 15g-100,
    17 CFR 240.3a51-1, .15g-1 to 100. A small number of BDCs disclose
    that because of their stock price, they are subject to the penny stock
    rules.
         \13\ A broker-dealer is also subject to FINRA Rule 2360(b)(16)
    with respect to its suitability obligations and the opening of an
    options account. More specifically, FINRA Rule 2360(b)(16) requires its
    members to exercise due diligence to ascertain the essential facts
    relative to a customer, his or her financial situation and investment
    objectives when considering whether to open an account for that
    customer to trade options. In addition, FINRA Rule 2360(b)(19) subjects
    its members' recommendations to engage in options trading (including
    whether to open an account and the subsequent recommendations for that
    account) to heightened suitability obligations.
         \14\ See FINRA, ``Regulatory Notice 09-31: Non-Traditional ETFS''
    (June 2009), http://www.finra.org/sites/default/files/NoticeDocument/
    p118952.pdf. See also FINRA, ``Regulatory Notice 12-03: Complex
    Products'' (Jan. 2012), http://www.finra.org/sites/default/files/
    NoticeDocument/p125397.pdf (providing guidance to firms about
    heightened supervision of complex products, including, among others,
    inverse or leveraged ETFs).
         \15\ See FINRA, ``Regulatory Notice 12-03: Complex Products''
    (Jan. 2012), http://www.finra.org/sites/default/files/NoticeDocument/
    p125397.pdf. See also NASD, ``Notice to Members 03-71: Non-Conventional
    Investments'' (Nov. 2003), https://www.finra.org/sites/default/files/
    NoticeDocument/p003070.pdf (reminding members of their obligations when
    selling ``nonconventional investments,'' such as asset-backed
    securities, distressed debt and derivative products).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Securities margin accounts are also subject to a
    comprehensive system of regulation. \16\ In general, any equity
    security that is listed on a national securities exchange is
    margin eligible. However, broker-dealers often have more
    restrictive house-margin requirements where they may not extend
    margin on certain securities such as low-priced equities. The
    Commission staff does not maintain statistics on the number of
    retail investors with margin accounts. We also understand that
    not all retail investors who open margin accounts actually
    purchase shares on margin (e.g., some investors may view such
    accounts as overdraft protection).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         \16\ See, e.g., Federal Reserve's Regulation T, 12 CFR 220.1 to
    220.132; Exchange Act Rule 10b-16, 17 CFR 240.10b-16; FINRA Rules 2360
    (Options); FINRA Rule 2264 (Margin Disclosure Statement); FINRA Rule
    4210 (Margin Requirements). See also FINRA, ``Regulatory Notice 11-15:
    Low-Priced Equity Securities'' (Apr. 2011), http://www.finra.org/sites/
    default/files/NoticeDocument/p123431.pdf (reminding firms to consider
    risks associated with low-priced equity securities when extending
    credit in a strategy-based or portfolio margin account); FINRA,
    ``Regulatory Notice 09-53: Non-Traditional ETFS'' (Aug. 2009), http://
    www.finra.org/sites/default/files/NoticeDocument/p119906.pdf (outlining
    increased margin requirements for leveraged ETFs and associated
    uncovered options).

    Q.2. Please clarify your understanding of the jurisdiction of
    the Department of Labor (DOL) with respect to retirement
    accounts that are covered by the Employee Retirement Income
    Security Act and its related rules and the SEC's jurisdiction
    over broker-dealers or investment advisers that service those
    accounts. To the extent it is relevant, please elaborate on the
    comment you made about how the historic overlap of SEC and DOL
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    jurisdiction has been managed.

    A.2. The DOL and the SEC are separate agencies with their own
    perspectives, jurisdiction, and statutory authority. The SEC
    oversees and enforces the Federal securities laws, including
    the Exchange Act with respect to broker-dealers and the
    Investment Advisers Act of 1940 with respect to investment
    advisers. In general, a ``broker'' is any person engaged in the
    business of effecting transactions in securities for the
    account of others, a ``dealer'' is any person engaged in the
    business of buying and selling securities for such person's own
    account, and an ``investment adviser'' is any person engaged in
    the business of advising others regarding securities for
    compensation. \17\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         \17\ See Exchange Act 3(a)(4)-(5), 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(4)-(5);
    Investment Advisers Act 202(a)(11), 15 U.S.C. 80b-2(a)(11).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        I am not in a position to describe in detail DOL's
    jurisdiction under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
    of 1974 (ERISA) or the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. In
    general terms, however, the statutes set minimum standards for
    employee benefit plans and provide protections to plan
    participants, including by prescribing certain requirements and
    responsibilities for fiduciaries of those plans. \18\ A
    ``fiduciary'' includes a person who exercises discretionary
    authority or control with respect to the management of a plan
    or disposition of its assets, renders investment advice for a
    fee or other direct or indirect compensation, or has any
    discretionary authority or responsibility in the administration
    of a plan. \19\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         \18\ See, e.g., 29 U.S.C. 1104 (standard of care for
    fiduciaries).
         \19\ See 29 U.S.C. 1002(21) (definition of fiduciary).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        An SEC-regulated broker-dealer or investment adviser that
    works with accounts governed by these statutes must comply with
    their requirements in addition to what is demanded of the
    financial institution under the Federal securities laws. For
    example, advisory firms that provide advice as fiduciaries
    under both the ERISA and SEC regulatory regimes must ensure
    that their practices comply with the provisions for fiduciaries
    under both regimes, which may include steps to address
    differences between the two sets of requirements (e.g.,
    different contract provisions for accounts subject to ERISA and
    accounts not subject to ERISA).
        The interplay between the DOL's regulations and the
    requirements under the Federal securities laws, and the
    application of different standards to the provision of
    investment advice to retail investors, are important issues.
    Consultation among the staff from the DOL and SEC has been
    important to manage any conflicts and issues that may arise
    related to the application of our separate regimes and
    mandates. For example, in 2011 staff from the Division of
    Investment Management issued a letter stating that disclosure
    to participants and beneficiaries of certain plan and
    investment-related information required by a rule under ERISA,
    including performance information, would be treated as
    satisfying the SEC's rules on mutual fund advertising,
    notwithstanding differences among the requirements. \20\ More
    recently, SEC staff consulted with DOL staff on the
    Commission's security-based swap business conduct rulemaking
    and the intersection of ERISA fiduciary status with the Dodd-
    Frank Act business continuity provisions. \21\ Consultation
    will continue to be important as the DOL's new conflict of
    interest rule comes into effect.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         \20\ See U.S. Dept. of Labor, SEC No-Action Letter (Oct. 26,
    2011), www.sec.gov/divisions/investment/noaction/2011/dol102611-
    482.htm.
         \21\ Business Conduct Standards for Security-Based Swap Dealers
    and Major Security-Based Swap Participants, Exchange Act Release No.
    77617, 81 FR 29959, 29965-66 (May 13, 2016), https://www.sec.gov/rules/
    final/2016/34-77617.pdf (clarifying that security-based swap dealers
    and major security-based swap participants would not be ERISA
    fiduciaries solely for complying with the Commission's external
    business conduct rules). See also 29 CFR 2510.3-21(c)(2) (providing
    that the provision of any advice to an employee benefit plan shall not
    cause a security-based swap dealer or major security-based swap
    participant to be deemed to be an ERISA fiduciary, where certain
    conditions are met).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    ------

            RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR CRAPO
                           FROM MARY JO WHITE

    Q.1. In a speech at Stanford you highlighted that fintech has
    ``the potential to transform how our markets operate in
    virtually every respect--from streamlined market operations to
    more affordable ways to raise capital and advise clients.''
        I am interested in the approach the UK has taken to
    fintech, such as Project Innovate. Do you expect the SEC will
    explore ways to better understand fintech through roundtables
    and other outreach efforts?

    A.1. The staff continues to monitor fintech developments in the
    securities industry and engage market participants to analyze
    the potential effect of new technologies on market efficiency,
    capital formation, and investor protection. This monitoring
    includes direct outreach to and discussions with industry
    participants, and staff is considering whether a roundtable or
    other more formal outreach mechanisms will foster staff's
    understanding of these issues.
        For example, established and new firms have been exploring
    the application of distributed ledger technology to potentially
    improve or replace existing processes across the infrastructure
    of the securities markets. Some of these firms appear to be
    developing applications that could be implemented in the
    clearance and settlement of securities. The staff has met with
    several of these firms to discuss their activity in this
    setting as well as consider potential regulatory implications.
    The Commission has also solicited comment on the utility of the
    new technology. For example, in response to a recent Advanced
    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Concept Release on transfer
    agent regulations, the Commission received industry feedback on
    the possible use of distributed ledger technology by transfer
    agents.

    Q.2. In response to a question from Senator Toomey on Rule 18f-
    4 and potential unintended consequences, you suggested that the
    SEC is reviewing the comment letters and working to improve the
    rule. I encourage you to consider the merits of the comment
    letters on how best to account for the actual amount of market
    risk exposure and work to tailor the rule accordingly.
        Can you commit to doing so as part of the rulemaking
    process?

    A.2. To date, the Commission has received more than 180 comment
    letters on proposed Rule 18f-4, and Commissioners and members
    of the staff collectively have held more than 50 meetings with
    commenters and other interested parties to discuss the
    proposal. The staff is currently reviewing the comment letters,
    and the Commission will carefully consider all of them,
    including those urging the Commission to consider adjustments
    to the proposed rule's exposure limitations, as the Commission
    works to finalize Rule 18f-4.
                                    ------

             RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR KIRK
                           FROM MARY JO WHITE

    Q.1. Chair White, the Commission recently updated its
    interpretative release regarding automated quotations under
    regulation NMS to allow for delays in price quotations. As part
    of that release, the Commission announced that it would conduct
    a study within 2 years regarding the effects of any intentional
    access delays on market quality, including asset pricing, and
    report back to the Commission with the results of any
    recommendations. Based on that study, or earlier, the
    Commission stated that it will ``reassess whether further
    action is appropriate.''
        Which office at the Commission will be responsible for
    conducting the aforementioned study?
        What factors will the Commission be monitoring to determine
    if ``further action is appropriate'' before the aforementioned
    study is completed?
        What types of problems could arise due to the issuance of
    the updated interpretative release that could prompt the
    Commission to reassess its position?
        Given that the issue of delayed quotes raises fundamental
    concerns about the structure and efficiency of our financial
    markets, why did you decide to approve IEX's application rather
    than undertake a rulemaking?

    A.1. In response to technological and market developments since
    the adoption of Regulation NMS in 2005, as well as novel
    proposals like IEX's exchange application, the Commission
    proposed and subsequently adopted an interpretation under
    Regulation NMS that ``immediate'' in the context of Regulation
    NMS does not preclude a de minimis intentional delay--i.e., a
    delay so short as to not frustrate the purposes of the trade-
    through rule of Regulation NMS by impairing fair and efficient
    access to an exchange's quotations. The Commission sought
    public comment on its proposed update to its prior
    interpretation of ``immediate'' in Regulation NMS, publishing a
    draft for review and comment by investors, broker-dealers, and
    other interested parties. These comments were carefully
    reviewed and taken into account in preparing the final
    interpretation.
        The Commission's interpretation referenced a study to be
    completed by Commission staff within 2 years regarding the
    potential effects of intentional access delays on market
    quality, including price discovery. That effort will involve
    staff from the Commission's Division of Trading and Markets in
    cooperation with the Division of Economic and Risk Analysis.
        Examples of areas that staff may evaluate include potential
    impacts on the national best bid and offer for equity
    securities and volume and quotation characteristics of
    exchanges with an intentional access delay. Through these
    efforts, or earlier as it determines, the Commission will
    reassess whether further action is appropriate.
        As the Commission noted in its interpretation, however,
    markets and market participants already deal with short
    unintentional delays in the current system, generally as the
    result of geographic or technology latencies. IEX's single
    intentional access delay is within existing latencies
    experienced by market participants as they route orders between
    dispersed exchanges. At the same time, the importance of this
    issue requires careful scrutiny, and the Commission staff will
    gather data to inform the evaluation of any potential impact of
    any intentional access delays, including those established by
    IEX.

    Q.2. According to some commentators, the Commission's recent
    approval of IEX's application to be a national securities
    exchange is vulnerable to court challenges.
        Did you consult with the Commission's general counsel about
    whether the Commission's order approving IEX's application was
    lawful? If so, what was the conclusion?

    A.2. Included among the responsibilities of the Office of the
    General Counsel is the provision of legal counsel on regulatory
    actions such as this one, offering explanation and analysis of
    open legal questions as well as legal consequences of potential
    Commission determinations and any associated legal risks. As
    part of the standard process for considering such applications,
    the General Counsel's office was consulted and provided its
    guidance to the Division and the Commissioners' offices on a
    range of questions and on the action that the Commission
    ultimately undertook.

    Q.3. Did you consider proceeding with a rulemaking to amend
    Regulation NMS rather than proceeding with a de facto amendment
    to Regulation NMS by approving the IEX's application to allow
    for intentionally delayed price quotations?

    A.3. In connection with its order granting IEX's exchange
    registration application, the Commission did not amend any
    definition or rule of Regulation NMS. Rather, in response to
    technological and market developments since Regulation NMS was
    adopted in 2005, the Commission issued an updated
    interpretation of the word ``immediate'' as used in the
    definition of automated quotation in Rule 600(b)(3) of
    Regulation NMS.
        While the Commission did afford an opportunity for notice
    and comment by publishing a draft interpretation for comment,
    and did take the comments it received into consideration, it
    was not required to undertake a notice and comment rulemaking
    when updating its prior interpretation of its own regulation.

    Q.4. The SEC's proposed rule to limit the use of derivatives in
    registered investment companies includes a requirement to
    calculate a fund's use of derivatives based on gross notional
    exposure. There is concern that this form of risk measurement
    may lead to the unintended consequence of overweighting to
    certain equities and moving away from commodities markets.
    Commodities markets are critical for owners of actual
    commodities who need liquid markets. Will you commit to
    addressing this concern as part of the rulemaking process?

    A.4. The Commission will carefully consider all of the comment
    letters received as we work to finalize the proposed rule,
    including comment letters addressing the proposed rule's use of
    gross notional exposure. The proposed rule did not provide
    differing treatment for equity and commodity derivatives. In
    addition, as described in the proposing release, the Commission
    staff's analysis indicated that it should be possible for funds
    to pursue, in some form, almost all existing types of
    investment strategies in compliance with the proposed rule.
                                    ------

            RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR HELLER
                           FROM MARY JO WHITE

    Q.1. Shareholder voting practices have changed dramatically
    over the last decade. There is an increased use of proxy
    advisory firms to provide analysis and proxy voting
    recommendations. Today, two firms dominate the proxy advisory
    industry. In 2014, the SEC issued guidance creating oversight
    of proxy advisory firms for the first time.
        I would like to know what activities the SEC is undertaking
    to ensure this guidance is being followed?

    A.1. Since the issuance of Staff Legal Bulletin 20, SEC staff
    has been monitoring the changes that have been implemented by
    proxy advisory firms and investment advisers in response to the
    staff guidance.
        The two largest proxy advisory firms now provide a
    description of their policies with regard to the disclosure of
    potential conflicts on their Web sites. In addition, while the
    Commission does not comment on specific examinations, the SEC's
    Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (OCIE)
    announced examination priorities for 2015, which, among other
    things, sought to examine select proxy advisory service firms,
    and how they make recommendations on proxy voting and how they
    disclose and mitigate potential conflicts of interest. OCIE's
    examination priorities for 2015 also included reviewing
    investment advisers' compliance with their fiduciary duty in
    voting proxies on behalf of investors. OCIE's efforts regarding
    this priority were incorporated into the ongoing Never-Before-
    Examined Investment Company (NBE IC) Initiative launched in
    April 2015. The NBE IC Initiative was conducted as focused,
    risk-based examinations in a number of higher-risk areas,
    including compliance programs. As one of the areas to be
    reviewed within the compliance program, OCIE announced that it
    would review the funds' portfolio proxy voting policies and
    procedures.

    Q.2. Do you believe proxy advisory firms use sufficient
    resources to perform proper due diligence in their research and
    vote recommendations?

    A.2. The nature and amount of resources a firm uses to perform
    research and make recommendations is largely a business
    decision of the particular firm. A proxy advisory firm provides
    advice to investors about securities, not unlike numerous other
    types of analysts and advisors in the financial markets.
        As you know, some registered investment advisers may choose
    to retain proxy advisory firms to assist with the advisers'
    proxy voting duties. When considering whether to retain or
    continue retaining any particular proxy advisory firm to
    provide proxy voting recommendations, the SEC staff has stated
    that an adviser should ascertain, among other things, whether
    the proxy advisory firm has the capacity and competency to
    adequately analyze proxy issues, which could include, among
    other things, the adequacy and quality of the proxy advisory
    firm's staffing and personnel.

    Q.3. How can SEC inspectors work to further ensure proxy
    advisory firms and their work receive proper examination,
    scrutiny, and is free of any conflicts of interest?

    A.3. Proxy advisory firms that are registered investment
    advisers under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 are subject
    to examination by OCIE. The SEC staff has historically
    conducted, and continues to conduct, examinations of registered
    investment advisers, evaluating many issues, including
    advisers' compliance with their fiduciary obligations and how
    they disclose and mitigate potential conflicts of interest.

    Q.4. There has been several meetings conducted by the advisory
    committee the SEC has set up to look at equity market
    structures.
        Do you believe that reforms to the market structures should
    be comprehensive and significant or do you support a small and
    piecemeal reform approach?
        Are you satisfied with the advisory committee's results so
    far?
        What are the current goals of the advisory committee and
    how and when will you complete those goals?

    A.4. Addressing the issues of our current market structure
    demands a continuous and comprehensive review that integrates
    targeted enhancements with an expansive consideration of
    broader changes. In February 2015, as part of our broader
    market structure work, the Commission established the Equity
    Market Structure Advisory Committee, comprised of diverse
    experts to consider specific initiatives and potential
    structural changes. The Committee was established to assist the
    Commission in its comprehensive reviews of the structure of the
    equity markets, and I have been very pleased with the progress
    of the Committee's work over the past year.
        The Committee as a whole has met six times to consider
    issues such as the operation of Regulation NMS, the impact of
    access fees and rebates widely used by stock exchanges, the
    regulatory structure of trading venues, and the impact of
    various market structure issues on customers. At the July
    meeting, the full Committee voted on recommendations from two
    of its subcommittees for an access fee pilot program and
    trading venue regulatory reforms related to NMS plan governance
    and self-regulatory organization proposals requiring technology
    changes. I expect that the staff will be considering all of
    these items and preparing its own recommendations for how the
    Commission should take account of the Committee's work in these
    areas. In particular, I expect that the staff will be working
    to develop plans for an access fee pilot program for the
    Commission's consideration.
        At the Committee's most recent meeting on August 2, the
    other two subcommittees presented their preliminary
    recommendations to the full Committee. Specifically, the Market
    Quality Subcommittee's recommendations focused on various
    market quality and safety features, such as limit up-limit down
    mechanisms and marketwide circuit breakers. The Customer Issues
    subcommittee focused on issues concerning retail investors,
    such as investor sentiment of equity market structure and
    modifications to Rules 605 and 606 of Regulation NMS.
        Maintaining and enhancing the high quality of the U.S.
    equity markets is one of the Commission's most important
    responsibilities. The Committee's work is an important part of
    that and is of great assistance in our efforts to ensure that
    the equity markets optimally meet the needs of investors and
    public companies.

    Q.5. A few months ago Senator Crapo and I held a hearing
    looking at changes in the fixed-income markets and looking at
    how regulators should work to keep the fixed-income markets
    open and liquid. There are early signs that fixed-income
    markets are becoming more fragile and less liquid than they
    used to be. The U.S. Treasury Department has issued a request
    for information from industry participants to deepen their
    understanding about what is happening in the fixed-income
    markets and the Federal Reserve is also examining this issue.
        Because the mission at the SEC is to maintain fair,
    orderly, and efficient markets, I would like to know if the SEC
    recognizes the changes occurring in the fixed-income markets
    and do you believe that future rules and regulations should be
    evaluated for potential impacts on liquidity in the bond
    markets before implementation?

    A.5. Commission staff actively monitors developments in the
    fixed-income markets, including changes in liquidity
    conditions, whether driven by market conditions, regulatory
    changes, or competitive forces. For example, in connection with
    implementation of the Volcker Rule, Commission staff, along
    with staffs of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency,
    Federal Reserve Board, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation,
    and the CFTC, monitors liquidity in the corporate bond market
    and provides quarterly reports to the House Committee on
    Financial Services.
        Before the Commission adopts or implements any rule or
    regulation, the initiative is carefully considered and
    evaluated, taking into account public input to inform our
    efforts. Among other things, this process allows for market
    participants to identify concerns they may have about the
    impact on liquidity. Any potential future rules or regulations
    impacting the fixed income markets under the Commission's
    jurisdiction would be subject to a similar process and would be
    considered and evaluated in light of the Commission's ongoing
    monitoring of evolution and developments in those markets.
                                    ------

            RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR SCOTT
                           FROM MARY JO WHITE

    Q.1. Do you agree that competition among Nationally Recognized
    Statistical Rating Organizations (NRSROs) is important to
    protecting investors and that the SEC should seek to prevent
    entrenchment of the largest incumbent rating agencies in
    investor guidelines?

    A.1. The Office of Credit Ratings, established pursuant to the
    Dodd-Frank Act, assists the Commission in executing its
    responsibility for protecting investors, promoting capital
    formation, and maintaining fair, orderly, and efficient
    markets. Congress stated that one of the objectives of the
    Credit Rating Agency Reform Act is to improve ratings quality
    by fostering competition in the credit rating agency industry,
    and we support Congress' objective in a number of ways.
    Pursuant to the Credit Rating Agency Reform Act, the staff
    reports on the state of competition annually as part of the
    Annual Report to Congress on NRSROs. As noted in the staff's
    December 2015 Annual Report to Congress on NRSROs, \1\
    comparing the number of ratings outstanding for established
    NRSROs and newer (smaller) NRSROs may not provide a
    comprehensive picture of the state of competition as
    ``outstanding'' ratings may not fairly reflect ``new issue''
    rating activity. Instead, information relating to recent market
    share developments in the asset-backed securities rating
    category may provide a better gauge of how effectively newer
    entrants are competing with more established rating agencies.
    In that regard, some of the smaller NRSROs have built
    significant market shares in the asset-backed securities rating
    category, including U.S. commercial mortgage-backed securities.
    Additionally, some of the smaller NRSROs are rating newer asset
    classes, such as single-family rental securitizations and
    marketplace lending securitizations. With respect to preventing
    entrenchment of rating agencies in investor guidelines, as
    discussed below, to reduce investors' reliance on credit
    ratings, the Commission has adopted final amendments to remove
    references to credit ratings in approximately 30 rules or
    forms.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         \1\ ``Office Of Credit Ratings, SEC, Annual Report on Nationally
    Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations'' (Dec. 2015), https://
    www.sec.gov/ocr/reportspubs/annual-reports/2015-annual-report-on-
    nrsros.pdf.

    Q.2. Will you commit to changing Rule 2a-7 to require a
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    reversion in investor guidelines to the term ``any NRSRO''?

    A.2. On September 16, 2015, the Commission adopted amendments
    to remove credit rating references in the principal rule that
    governs money market funds, Rule 2a-7 of the Investment Company
    Act of 1940, and in Form N-MFP, the form that money market
    funds use to report information to the Commission each month
    about their portfolio holdings. The amendments implemented
    section 939A of the Dodd-Frank Act, which requires the
    Commission to review its rules that require the use of an
    assessment of creditworthiness of a security or money market
    instrument and any references to or requirements in the rule
    regarding credit ratings, remove any reference to or
    requirement of reliance on credit ratings, and substitute in
    those rules other standards of creditworthiness that are
    determined as appropriate by the Commission. Under amended Rule
    2a-7, a money market fund may invest in a security only if the
    fund's board of directors (or its delegate, typically the
    fund's adviser) determines that the security presents minimal
    credit risks after analyzing, to the extent appropriate,
    certain prescribed factors.
        The amendments to Form N-MFP require a money market fund to
    disclose NRSRO ratings that the fund uses in its evaluations of
    portfolio securities. Specifically, a fund must disclose for
    each portfolio security any NRSRO rating that the fund's board
    of directors (or its delegate) considered in making its minimal
    credit risk determination, as well as the name of the NRSRO
    providing the rating. According to data submitted on Form N-MFP
    as of June 30, 2016, approximately 16 percent of money market
    funds report that they used NRSRO ratings in their credit risk
    evaluations of the funds' portfolio securities.

    Q.3. What is your authority to regulate the investor guidelines
    of mutual funds and pension funds?

    A.3. The Investment Company Act of 1940 (1940 Act) regulates
    the organization of investment companies, including mutual
    funds, which engage primarily in investing, reinvesting, and
    trading in securities, and whose securities are offered to the
    investing public. The 1940 Act was designed to protect
    investors from certain abuses and requires full and fair
    disclosure to the investing public of information about the
    fund, including about its investment objectives, financial
    condition, and its structure and operations, and prohibits an
    investment company from changing its fundamental investment
    policies without shareholder approval. The 1940 Act also limits
    funds' issuance of debt and other senior securities, and
    includes requirements related to valuation, redemptions of fund
    shares, and dealings with service providers and other
    affiliates. The Commission does not regulate pension funds.

    Q.4. What other authorities does the SEC have to create a
    ratings environment that fosters access to the best research
    instead of allowing the entrenchment of incumbent NRSROs
    through outdated investor guidelines?

    A.4. The Commission began removing references to credit ratings
    in Commission rules and forms in 2009 and accelerated that
    process after the enactment of section 939A of the Dodd-Frank
    Act. To date, the Commission has adopted final amendments to
    remove references to credit ratings in approximately 30 rules
    or forms. For example, as noted above, the Commission on
    September 16, 2015, adopted amendments to remove credit rating
    references in the principal rule that governs money market
    funds, Rule 2a-7 under the Investment Company Act of 1940, and
    Form N-MFP, the form that money market funds use to report
    information to the Commission each month about their portfolio
    holdings. In these amendments, the Commission eliminated
    requirements that limited money market funds to investing in
    securities that had received certain NRSRO ratings and instead
    requires that a money market fund invest only in securities
    that the fund's board of directors (or its delegate, typically
    the fund's adviser) has determined present minimal credit risks
    after analyzing, to the extent appropriate, certain prescribed
    factors.
                                    ------

            RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR SASSE
                           FROM MARY JO WHITE

    Q.1. I'd like to ask about the SEC's recent grant of exchange
    status to IEX.
        Does the SEC expect that other exchanges will respond to
    the newly approved speed bump with similar innovations?
        If so, how will this impact the securities market?
        In approving IEX's application, the SEC issued staff
    guidance stating that ``delays of less than a millisecond are
    at a de minimus level that would not impair fair and efficient
    access to a quotation . . . '' but that some intentional delays
    could be ``unfairly discriminatory, not an appropriate or
    unnecessary burden on competition, and otherwise consistent
    with the Act.'' Given this framework, how would the SEC
    evaluate an intentional delay that did not apply consistently
    and equally to all users of the exchange that implemented a
    delay?
        Do the issues raised by IEX's successful application to
    become an exchange merit a review of Regulation NMS that is
    ``comprehensive and part of formal rule making,'' as former SEC
    Commissioner Paul Atkins has called for?

    A.1. In light of IEX's exchange registration application and
    technological and market developments since the adoption of
    Regulation NMS, the Commission decided to revisit its
    interpretation of the term ``immediate'' under Regulation NMS.
    The interpretation is applicable to all exchanges and provides
    that, solely in the context of determining whether a trading
    center maintains an ``automated quotation'' for purposes of
    Rule 611 of Regulation NMS, the Commission does not interpret
    the term ``immediate'' by itself to prohibit a trading center
    from implementing an intentional access delay that is de
    minimis--i.e., a delay so short as to not frustrate the
    purposes of the trade-through rule of Regulation NMS by
    impairing fair and efficient access to the exchange's
    quotations. While I cannot predict how other exchanges will
    react, the Commission's interpretation is equally applicable to
    them. Whether and, if so, how multiple access delays will
    impact the securities markets is something that the
    Commission's staff will monitor and consider, if such delays
    are ultimately implemented. The Commission's interpretation
    noted that a study will be completed by Commission staff within
    two years regarding the potential effects of intentional access
    delays on market quality, including price discovery.
        As noted in the interpretation, any exchange that proposes
    to adopt an intentional access delay must do so through a rule
    filing of the exchange, which must be filed with the Commission
    and published for notice and comment by the public.
    Importantly, the interpretation does not change the existing
    requirement that, prior to being implemented, an intentional
    delay of any duration must be fully disclosed and codified in a
    written rule of the exchange that has become effective pursuant
    to section 19 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange
    Act), where the exchange met its burden of articulating how the
    purpose, operation, and application of the delay is consistent
    with the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
    applicable to the exchange. If the Commission cannot find that
    a proposed access delay is consistent with the Exchange Act, it
    would disapprove the proposal, rendering moot the issue of
    whether a quotation with such a delay is protected. Generally,
    the Commission would be concerned about access delays that were
    imposed only on certain market participants or intentional
    access delays that were relieved based upon payment of certain
    fees.
        The general issues surrounding IEX's exchange application,
    notably whether exchanges with intentional access delays can
    maintain protected quotations, has been addressed by the
    Commission's interpretation. Nevertheless, based on the results
    of the staff's study or earlier as it determines, the
    Commission will reassess whether further action is appropriate.

    Q.2. I'd like to talk about the SEC's rulemaking schedule. The
    SEC's mission is to ``protect investors, maintain fair,
    orderly, and efficient markets, and facilitate capital
    formation.'' Unfortunately, as former SEC Commissioner Dan
    Gallagher has said, ``issues specific to small business capital
    formation too often remain on the proverbial back burner. This
    lack of attention doesn't just harm small business; it also
    harms investors and the public at large.'' Is there a danger
    that the SEC's focus on completing its various mandated
    rulemakings makes it difficult to fulfill its mission to
    facilitate capital formation?
        What is the SEC currently doing to focus on the ``capital
    formation'' prong of its mission, in particular for smaller
    businesses?
        Where are new areas that the SEC can explore to expand
    access to capital? For example, many have sensibly called to
    expand the definition of ``accredited investor'' to encompass
    sophisticated investors.
        While the SEC does have an annual Government-Business Forum
    on Small Business Capital Formation, the SEC rarely acts on
    these recommendations, especially without Congressional
    prodding. Can you commit that the SEC will seriously evaluate
    every recommendation from the forum next year?

    A.2. The Commission is deeply committed to the priority of
    facilitating capital formation for small businesses. The SEC's
    rules provide small and emerging companies with a range of
    options for raising capital, and it is important to assess
    whether those options are meeting their needs, in light of
    their business models and capital needs, while providing strong
    investor protections that promote confidence in the markets.
        As I mentioned in my written testimony, the SEC has
    completed all of the rulemakings directed by the JOBS Act,
    which resulted in significant changes to the avenues for
    capital formation in the securities markets, especially for
    smaller issuers. In addition to statutorily mandated
    rulemakings, we also engage in discretionary rulemakings and
    other initiatives to promote capital formation. For example,
    the Commission last year issued a proposal to amend rules for
    smaller and intrastate securities offerings that would help
    facilitate State-based crowdfunding and smaller regional
    securities offerings by smaller companies.
        Another important initiative is the pilot program to widen
    the minimum quoting and trading increments--or tick sizes--for
    stocks of some smaller companies. Following a study directed by
    the JOBS Act, the Commission last year approved a proposal,
    submitted in response to a Commission order, by the national
    securities exchanges and the Financial Industry Regulatory
    Authority (FINRA) for a 2-year pilot program. The SEC plans to
    use the pilot program to assess whether wider tick sizes
    enhance the market quality of these stocks for the benefit of
    issuers and investors. The pilot is scheduled to begin on
    October 3, 2016.
        We are committed to our mission of facilitating capital
    formation for all businesses, large and small, and we
    understand it is particularly important to hear the views of
    small business owners, investors, and other stakeholders in the
    small and emerging business community. As you note, the SEC
    hosts an annual forum focusing on small business capital
    formation, called the Government-Business Forum on Small
    Business Capital Formation (Small Business Forum). This forum
    has assembled annually since 1982, as mandated by the Small
    Business Investment Incentive Act of 1980, and provides a
    platform to highlight concerns related to small business
    capital formation and to consider the ways in which these
    concerns can be addressed. Every year, the Small Business Forum
    seeks to develop recommendations for Government and private
    action to facilitate small business capital formation.
        Further, twice during my time as Chair, the SEC has renewed
    the charter for its Advisory Committee on Small and Emerging
    Companies (ACSEC). The ACSEC includes expert members from
    across the small business spectrum and provides the SEC with
    valuable recommendations and input. Pursuant to its charter,
    the ACSEC provides advice on our rules, regulations, and
    policies as they relate to:

        capital raising by emerging privately held small
            businesses and publicly traded companies with less than
            $250 million in public market capitalization through
            securities offerings, including private and limited
            offerings and initial and other public offerings;

        trading in the securities of emerging companies and
            smaller public companies; and

        public reporting and corporate governance
            requirements of emerging companies and smaller public
            companies.

        Both the Small Business Forum and the ACSEC help ensure
    that the views of small businesses, investors, and other
    stakeholders in this community are clearly heard here at the
    SEC, and their recommendations are considered thoroughly. For
    example, we recently proposed amendments to the ``smaller
    reporting company'' definition that would expand the number of
    companies that qualify as smaller reporting companies, thus
    enabling them to provide certain existing scaled disclosures
    under Regulation S-K and Regulation S-X. This change was a
    recommendation of both the Small Business Forum and the ACSEC.
        You also asked about the ``accredited investor''
    definition. In another important step for modernizing the
    private offering market, the SEC published a staff report in
    December 2015 regarding this definition. The report analyzes
    various approaches for modifying the accredited investor
    definition and provides staff recommendations for potential
    updates and modifications. The report recommends that the SEC
    consider additional measures of sophistication for individuals
    to qualify as accredited investors (other than looking solely
    at income and net worth). The report also evaluates the impact
    that potential changes to the definition would have on the size
    of the accredited investor pool.
        In July 2016, the ACSEC provided recommendations to the SEC
    regarding the accredited investor definition. I have directed
    the staff to prepare recommendations for the SEC on whether and
    how the definition should be modified, and the recommendations
    provided by the ACSEC and the SEC's Investor Advisory
    Committee, as well as all of the comments we are receiving in
    response to the report, will help inform the next steps.
        In addition to our rulemaking initiatives and our continued
    engagement with the Small Business Forum and ACSEC and their
    respective recommendations, SEC staff routinely engages with
    the public and companies on questions of small business capital
    formation. For example, staff in the Division of Corporation
    Finance's Office of Small Business Policy answers questions
    from market participants on a daily basis about disclosure and
    other issues relating to smaller public companies and about
    limited, private, and intrastate offerings of securities. This
    exchange is an important part of the work we do on behalf of
    investors and issuers involved in smaller businesses.

    Q.3. I'd like to discuss the marketplace online lending
    ecosystem, which has grown significantly as of late.
        My understanding is that SEC regulations require online
    marketplace lenders such as Proper and Lending Tree to update
    their regulatory filings with the SEC every week or so. Do you
    believe this is the most effective way to regulate these
    companies?

    A.3. The Federal securities laws are designed to protect
    investors in connection with the offer and sale of securities.
    Those investor protections include disclosure requirements and
    antifraud provisions that hold companies responsible for
    providing false or misleading information to investors.
        Obtaining money from investors to fund borrower loans
    through an online lending platform involves the offer and sale
    of securities. These offers and sales are subject to the same
    registration provisions of, and can take advantage of the same
    exemptive provisions from, the Securities Act of 1933 as any
    other company engaging in an offering of their securities,
    including ``brick and mortar'' lenders. The requirements for
    updating the information provided to investors is the same as
    those for other companies engaged in the offer and sale of
    securities.
        Commission staff has worked with online marketplace lenders
    to help them meet registration and disclosure requirements. For
    example, staff in the Division of Corporation Finance consulted
    with online marketplace lenders as they crafted a structure to
    fund loans and sell notes in a manner compliant with the
    Federal securities laws. As with other companies engaging in
    continuous registered offerings of securities under the Federal
    securities laws, these companies have an obligation to provide
    disclosure to investors about the securities being acquired.

    Q.4. Is the SEC exploring alternative means of regulating
    online marketplace lenders that do not involve such a robust
    filing requirement? Would any of these changes require
    statutory authorization?

    A.4. The Commission and the Federal securities laws provide a
    number of ways companies can raise capital, with different
    disclosure and reporting standards depending on who they sell
    to and how much they raise. To date, the need for an
    alternative system to regulate online marketplace lenders is
    not apparent based on the practices we have observed in the
    industry.
        When marketplace lenders seek to access the public capital
    markets, as with any other company, they must comply with the
    registration and disclosure requirements of the Federal
    securities laws. I believe that investors need certain
    disclosures, including about the risk of loss of all principal
    and interest upon a borrower's default, to make an informed
    investment decision.

    Q.5. Would there be merit to creating a broad safe harbor for
    marketplace online lenders which scales registration
    requirements to reflect their unique business model?

    A.5. I believe the Federal securities laws provide a number of
    options already, and it is not clear to me at this time that
    the business model of marketplace lenders would merit its own
    registration regime. Marketplace lenders are currently able to
    raise capital in private and public markets.

    Q.6. Some have criticized the SEC's treatment of machine-
    readable, open data, including for its implementation of a
    dual-filing requirement for both XBRL and old fashioned
    documents, and a slow transition toward allowing the filing of
    inline XBRL, which is both human-readable and machine-readable.
    In addition to this step, how does the SEC plan to modernize
    its treatment of Government data and transition toward open-
    data?

    A.6. The Commission has a longstanding commitment to using
    developments in technology and electronic data communications
    to facilitate easier access to information. Machine-readable
    financial market data enhances our rulemaking and market-
    monitoring activities and makes disclosures more usable for the
    public.
        What to disclose, and how to disclose it, are vital
    questions that we ask in any rulemaking that involves the
    reporting of information to the Commission. Thus, in several
    recent rulemakings, the Commission has either proposed or
    adopted disclosures that would be made in a structured format.
    For example, in adopting Regulation Crowdfunding, the
    Commission required Form C (containing issuer disclosures) to
    be filed in eXtensible Markup Language (XML). Similarly, the
    final rule amendments to Regulation AB required asset-level
    disclosures in XML. In addition, in the recently issued
    Regulation S-K concept release, the Commission specifically
    sought comment on whether to require registrants to provide
    additional disclosures in a structured format.
        I am also committed to exploring other ways to enhance the
    availability and usability of structured data. For example,
    staff has posted on the Commission's Web site reformatted
    financial information that was reported by companies in their
    filings in XBRL format. Specifically, staff has combined and
    organized as-reported XBRL data into structured file sets to
    facilitate improved data analysis by the public.
        Finally, in addition to promoting the public availability
    and usability of structured data, the SEC has been proactively
    incorporating structured data into its own internal processes.
    Structured data enhances our rulemaking and market-monitoring
    activities; for example, it is a valuable input into several
    risk assessment tools that our Division of Economic and Risk
    Analysis, Division of Enforcement, and Office of Compliance
    Inspections and Examinations have been jointly developing and
    deploying to enhance the effectiveness of Commission staff in
    detecting wrongdoing.

    Q.7. Australia has created a Standard Business Reporting regime
    (SBR) that allows a company to complete one filing to comply
    with multiple regulatory disclosure requirements. This has
    extensively reduced the amount of required data fields, saving
    the Australian economy more than $1 billion annually by one
    estimate. Could a similar regulatory regime be possible in the
    United States? Have you discussed this possibility with other
    regulators?

    A.7. It is my understanding that Standard Business Reporting
    (SBR) is an Australian Government initiative that was
    introduced in 2010 to simplify the business reporting
    obligations of companies that report to the Australian
    Government. SBR uses standard terms that are built into
    software technologies to facilitate the dissemination of
    business and accounting information across participating
    Government agencies. While it may be possible to implement a
    similar regulatory regime among regulatory authorities in the
    United States, such a regime likely would involve significant
    planning and close coordination among various regulatory
    agencies with different missions and priorities and may require
    statutory changes to implement. I have not discussed this
    possibility with fellow regulators.
        The SEC's disclosure rules require companies that offer and
    sell securities to the public and that are required to file
    periodic reports with the Commission to provide information
    about their business and financial condition, among other
    things. The staff of the Division of Corporation Finance is
    engaged in a broad-based review of our disclosure rules to
    determine how we can make our requirements more effective for
    investors and companies. The Commission has issued releases
    resulting from this review on a variety of topics, including a
    concept release on business and financial disclosures required
    by Regulation S-K. Among the topics addressed in the concept
    release is the use of data tagging to facilitate disclosure and
    review of information. The staff is currently considering the
    comments received on the concept release.
                                    ------

            RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR ROUNDS
                           FROM MARY JO WHITE

    Q.1. Are you concerned by the fact that issuance of private
    stock has now outstripped public shares sold to all retail
    investors, in terms of new issuance? He asked this question
    during the hearing but would like to follow up with QFRs on the
    same topic with the following two questions.
        What are the long term implications of this shift?
        What if anything is the SEC doing about this trend, to try
    to stimulate IPOs?

    A.1. As you note, in recent years, the size of the private
    capital raising market in terms of the total number of
    offerings conducted and dollar amounts raised has outpaced the
    size of registered securities offerings. While the long term
    implications of the current trend are not entirely clear, it is
    the responsibility of the Commission to ensure that investors
    are protected, whether in public or private markets, and that
    issuers have a range of means to raise the capital they need to
    fuel their businesses.
        Specifically, a robust private capital raising market must
    provide all investors--irrespective of their income or net
    worth--with investment opportunities and strong investor
    protections. In implementing its JOBS Act mandates, the SEC
    created new and revitalized existing exemptions for capital
    raising options for companies and investment opportunities for
    investors, including rules that allow companies to generally
    solicit investors in certain private offerings, conduct
    securities-based crowdfunding offerings, and raise capital
    pursuant to an updated and expanded Regulation A. The fact that
    companies are increasingly relying on these and other avenues
    for capital is consistent with our goal of promoting capital
    formation by providing issuers a diverse range of capital-
    raising mechanisms backed with strong investor protections.
        In addition to creating new avenues for capital formation,
    the JOBS Act included provisions that created a new category of
    companies in registered offerings, called ``emerging growth
    companies'' (EGCs). These provisions provided a number of
    accommodations for companies that qualify as EGCs.
        Since enactment of the JOBS Act, SEC staff has issued
    detailed guidance on the EGC-related provisions and procedures
    to assist companies in navigating the so-called IPO on-ramp. To
    date, the SEC has received over 1,100 confidential submissions
    of draft registration statements by EGCs seeking to conduct a
    registered initial public offering.
        Having an effective disclosure regime is critical for
    capital formation and investor protection. In late 2013, based
    in part on the results of a JOBS Act mandated report on the
    disclosure requirements for companies included in Regulation S-
    K, I directed SEC staff to develop specific recommendations for
    updating our rules that dictate what a company must disclose in
    its filings. The overall goal of the disclosure effectiveness
    initiative is to comprehensively review our disclosure
    requirements and to make recommendations to update those
    requirements to make disclosure more meaningful, accessible,
    and efficient for investors. Last year, as part of this review,
    the SEC published a request for comment on what investors,
    companies, and market participants would like to see with
    respect to the form and content of financial statement
    disclosures by entities other than the registrant under
    Regulation S-X. Additionally, this year as part of the
    disclosure effectiveness initiative, as well as to facilitate
    implementation of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation
    (FAST) Act, the SEC issued a broad-based concept release
    seeking input from investors, issuers, and other affected
    market participants on our business and financial disclosure
    requirements, proposed rules to modernize the SEC's disclosure
    requirements and policies for mining properties, and, most
    recently, proposed amendments to address outdated and redundant
    disclosure requirements while continuing to require companies
    to provide investors with the information they need to make
    informed decisions.
                                    ------

            RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR WARNER
                           FROM MARY JO WHITE

    Q.1. Chair White, last year, NASDAQ and NYSE filed petitions
    for rulemaking asking the SEC to promulgate rules to increase
    transparency around short selling. Other groups supported those
    petitions as well. While short selling can be important for
    liquidity and hedging, it is also important to ensure an
    equitable disclosure regime for short and long investors. As
    you know, there is currently more disclosure required for long
    positions.
        Can you please comment on the status of these petitions?
    Does the SEC plan to act on this issue?

    A.1. Extensive short sale data is currently publicly available,
    free or on a fee basis, including daily short sale volume and
    transaction data, short interest data, and fails to deliver
    data. The Commission staff has worked with the self-regulatory
    organizations (SROs) to make short sale data available to the
    public, including aggregate daily short selling volume in
    individual equity securities; on a 1-month delayed basis,
    information regarding individual short sale transactions in
    exchange-listed equity securities; and semimonthly statistics
    on short interest. The Commission also publishes on its web
    site ``fail-to-deliver'' information semimonthly for all equity
    securities.
        I am committed to ensuring that short sale data strikes the
    right balance between disclosures necessary to protect
    investors while preserving the benefits of price discovery and
    liquidity that short selling can bring to the market. In
    comparing disclosure regimes for short and long investors, it
    is important to consider the different purposes that such
    requirements would seek to address. Most notably, public
    disclosure of long positions provides information regarding
    persons that may have potential influence over, or control of,
    the issuer. Similar disclosure of short positions would not
    provide such information.
        The Commission staff continues to consider, as part of
    Dodd-Frank Act section 929X and in conjunction with the June
    2014 staff study of real-time short sale disclosure required by
    the Dodd-Frank Act, whether additional transparency may be
    warranted. In that context, the Commission staff also takes
    into account feedback from all market participants, including
    the petitions from NASDAQ and NYSE.

    Q.2. Over the past few years, investors and market participants
    have experienced disruptions in the timely dissemination of
    public market data via the Securities Information Processors or
    SIPs, operated by various exchanges, including at NASDAQ in
    2013. After the NASDAQ glitch, which shut down trading on
    NASDAQ listed stocks for three hours, you convened a meeting
    with exchange CEOs to discuss how to improve resiliency. These
    same entities sit on the governance committee overseeing our
    current market structure. Yet SIP outages affect the entire
    stock and options markets, and so it seems to me that entities
    who must make the decisions about whether or not to invest in
    the public data feeds and make necessary improvements to vital
    market infrastructure ought to not be the only voice in the
    room. While the current set of recommendations may be
    insufficient, the Equity Market Structure Advisory Committee
    has recommended changes to the governance structure. Would you
    agree that it is time to update the governance structure for
    NMS Plans and the operating committee?

    A.2. NMS plan governance is one of the many important topics
    the Commission currently is assessing as part of its broad-
    based review of equity market structure. For example, the
    Equity Market Structure Advisory Committee at its July 8, 2016,
    meeting recently made a number of recommendations to the
    Commission relating to trading venues regulation. \1\ Those
    recommendations include expanding the role of NMS plan advisory
    committees to provide them with a formal vote on any matter on
    which the operating committee votes, as well as to initiate
    their own recommendations to the operating committee, so as to
    make NMS plan advisory committees more significant, formalized,
    and uniform. \2\ I expect the Commission will give these
    recommendations full consideration as it considers governance
    structure changes in NMS plans.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         \1\ The recommendations can be found at the Equity Market
    Structure Advisory Committee's spotlight page. See ``Equity Market
    Structure Advisory Committee Telephone Meeting'', SEC.gov (July 8,
    2016), https://www.sec.gov/video/webcast-archive-player.shtml?
    document_id=070816emsac.
         \2\ See id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        As we assess possible changes to the governance structure
    for NMS plans, it is important to bear in mind that such plans
    serve important regulatory purposes, such as ensuring that
    accurate and reliable consolidated market data is widely
    available to investors, that our markets have robust mechanisms
    to protect against excessive volatility, and that SROs can
    effectively surveil the markets. At the same time, I recognize
    the importance of incorporating the views of broker-dealers and
    other stakeholders in the operation of an NMS plan at an early
    stage of the decision-making process. Early-stage engagement
    may, among other things, enhance the quality of the proposals
    developed by the NMS plans as well as facilitate more swift
    adoption and implementation. Accordingly, enhancements to the
    governance of NMS plans designed to ensure that the views of
    key stakeholders are taken into account are among the
    significant issues under consideration.

    Q.3. Chair White, you previously announced as part of the
    Regulatory Flexibility agenda for the Spring of 2016 that a
    potential rulemaking to shorten the settlement time for
    securities would be complete by the end of June of this year.
    Can you please give me an update on the status of this
    rulemaking?

    A.3. I and my fellow Commissioners have publicly stated our
    support for efforts to shorten the settlement cycle from the
    third business day after the trade date to no later than the
    second business day (T+2). Shortening the settlement cycle
    should yield important benefits, including reduced counterparty
    risk, decreased clearing capital requirements, reduced
    procyclical margin and liquidity demands, and increased global
    harmonization. While current SEC rules do not prevent the
    implementation of T+2, updates to those rules could help
    support the move to T+2 by all market participants, as well as
    to shorter settlement cycles potentially in the future. I
    therefore have instructed Commission staff to develop a
    proposal to amend SEC Rule 15c6-1(a) to require settlement no
    later than T+2 for Commission consideration this year. In
    developing the proposal, Commission staff has been working with
    various market participants regarding the key issues
    surrounding shortening the settlement cycle to T+2. I expect
    that the proposal will be published in the fall of this year.
        While this initiative complements the work of the
    securities industry and the SROs, it should not be seen as a
    precondition or an impediment to the ongoing industry progress
    to shorten the settlement cycle. There has been a tremendous
    amount of work done to date by a broad range of market
    participants toward achieving the transition to T+2, and this
    effort must continue expeditiously to completion.

    Q.4. On July 21, 2015, Sen. Mike Crapo and I wrote to you to
    ask when the Commission would fix its duplicative requirement
    for public companies to file two versions of every financial
    statement--first as a document, then the same information again
    in the XBRL open data format. We pointed out that collecting
    two versions (1) distracted Commission staff from enforcing the
    quality of the data version; (2) delayed the broader
    modernization of the Commission's whole corporate disclosure
    system from document-focused to data-centric; and (3) imposed
    unnecessary costs on public companies, who must check the two
    versions against each other. On August 19, 2015, you responded
    that the Commission staff were ``developing recommendations to
    allow filers to submit XBRL data inline as part of their core
    filings.'' I was pleased to see that just last week, June 13,
    the Commission issued an order allowing (but not requiring)
    public companies to file a single version of their financial
    statements, using the inline XBRL format, which is both human-
    readable and machine-readable. The order expires in March 2020.
    What do you expect the Commission will learn from this
    temporary period of voluntary inline XBRL filing?

    A.4. I believe that inline XBRL has the potential to provide a
    number of benefits to filers and users of structured financial
    information. For example, inline XBRL could decrease filing
    preparation costs, improve the quality of structured data, and,
    by improving data quality, increase the use of XBRL data by
    investors and other market participants.
        As the Commission's exemptive order noted, permitting the
    voluntary use of inline XBRL allows the Commission to further
    assess the usefulness of inline XBRL and can facilitate further
    development of inline XBRL preparation and analysis tools,
    provide investors and companies with the opportunity to
    evaluate its usefulness, and help inform any future Commission
    rulemaking in this area.
        Additionally, a voluntary period of inline XBRL filing can
    allow the Commission to review and evaluate whether our beliefs
    regarding the potential benefits of inline XBRL are correct. It
    can also provide us with additional input to inform our
    consideration of whether to adopt a mandatory rule and, if so,
    whether the rule should include certain exemptions or phase-in
    provisions. A voluntary filing period can also provide an
    opportunity for any technological or practical issues
    associated with inline XBRL to be identified and resolved prior
    to potentially requiring the use of inline XBRL.

    Q.5. Although I am pleased to see that the Commission has
    finally announced a pathway toward full open data for corporate
    financial statements, I am disappointed that the Commission did
    not publish the data structure (known as a specification) for
    inline XBRL filing in advance, to give public companies,
    disclosure management software providers, data consumers and
    other stakeholders a chance to review and comment on it.
    Instead, the Commission published the specification and issued
    the order simultaneously, leaving public companies and software
    providers scrambling to review the specification, and creating
    a delay before inline XBRL filing can begin and uncertainty
    about the impact of this change on data consumption.
        This failure to publish a data structure in advance of the
    legal order contrasts with the approach taken by the Treasury
    Department in implementing the DATA Act of 2014, which I
    introduced in the Senate and which requires the Federal
    Government to adopt a standardized open data structure for its
    own financial information. The DATA Act requires standardized
    financial reporting by Federal agencies to begin in May 2017,
    but the Treasury Department has already published several
    versions of the data structure for review and comment by
    agencies, software firms serving them, and other interested
    parties.
        For future changes to the data structures it uses to
    collect securities disclosures, will the Commission commit to
    publishing such data structures at least 60 days in advance of
    any legal order permitting or mandating their use?

    A.5. The Commission seeks to provide the public with adequate
    notice regarding technical implementation issues associated
    with structured data. For example, when the Commission in
    December 2015 proposed a new rule specifying the form and
    manner with which security-based swap data repositories (SDRs)
    will be required to make security-based swap data available to
    the Commission--specifically, requiring SDRs to make data
    available using schemas published on the Commission's Web site
    and referencing international industry standards Financial
    products Markup Language (FpML) and Financial Information
    eXchange Markup Language (FIXML)--the Commission also posted
    for public comment the related technical schemas. Similarly,
    draft copies of amendments to the EDGAR Filer Manual are
    generally posted on the Commission's Web site in advance of
    Commission approval to help filers, agents, and software
    developers prepare for potential technical changes related to
    filing on EDGAR. More generally, Commission staff proactively
    engages with the software and services vendor community,
    inquiring about their capabilities and readiness with respect
    to various matters that the Commission has indicated an
    interest in potentially pursuing, such as inline XBRL, the IFRS
    taxonomy, or structuring of data outside the financial
    statements.
        With respect to the inline XBRL exemptive order, the
    Commission was permitting voluntary implementation, rather than
    requiring compliance by a date certain. One of the objectives
    of this voluntary filing program is to provide investors,
    preparers, and third party service providers a means to assess
    the technical requirements and provide feedback to staff during
    the voluntary period, in advance of any determination whether
    to require issuers to file using Inline XBRL. Delaying
    effectiveness of the exemptive order to provide advance notice
    of the technical requirements would have impeded issuers and
    preparers from voluntarily participating in the program and
    providing valuable feedback when ready. In this regard, I note
    that the first inline XBRL filing was submitted to the
    Commission on July 1, three weeks after the exemptive order was
    issued.

    Q.6. Financial statements are filed as part of larger periodic
    filings under the Exchange Act of 1934. Forms 10-K and 10-Q
    include a great deal of information beyond the financial
    statements that today is expressed in plain-text document form,
    not open data. For example, Exhibit 21 to the 10-K requires a
    public company to identify its subsidiaries. This list of
    subsidiaries is plain text, not electronic data fields, which
    makes it very difficult for investors' software to
    automatically identify a company's subsidiaries and link them
    to other databases. But by adopting inline XBRL, the Commission
    is opening an easy avenue to transform more of the periodic
    filings from plain text into open data. Companies will be
    filing each Form 10-K and 10-Q as a single human-readable HTML
    document with embedded electronic tags that identify particular
    data fields. At first, only the financial statements will be
    tagged, but the Commission could add new tags to information
    such as Exhibit 21 to make such information electronically
    searchable as open data. Do you expect that the adoption of the
    inline XBRL approach for financial statements will start a
    broader modernization of the Exchange Act filings, with
    electronic tags being added for other types of information
    contained in them?

    A.6. What to disclose, and how to disclose it, are vital
    questions that the Commission must ask in any rulemaking that
    involves the reporting of information to the Commission. Thus,
    in several recent rulemakings, the Commission has either
    proposed or adopted disclosures that would be made in a
    structured format. For example, in Regulation Crowdfunding, the
    Commission required Form C (containing certain issuer
    disclosures) to be filed in eXtensible Markup Language (XML).
    Similarly, the final rule amendments to Regulation AB required
    asset-level disclosures in XML. In addition, a number of
    recently proposed rules also have included structured
    information, including those on executive compensation and
    enhanced reporting by investment companies.
        In addition, the Commission has been considering whether to
    extend structuring requirements in its existing rules. In the
    recently issued Regulation S-K concept release, the Commission
    specifically sought comment on whether to require registrants
    to provide additional disclosures in a structured format,
    including whether there are categories of information in Parts
    I and II of Form 10-K or in Form 10-Q that investors would want
    to receive as structured data. We look forward to input from
    commenters to help us assess investor interest in the
    structuring of existing disclosures outside the financial
    statements.
                                    ------

           RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR MERKLEY
                           FROM MARY JO WHITE

    Q.1. I am very concerned that the SEC, under your leadership,
    has dropped the issue of political spending from its agenda.
        When it comes to spending on political activity, only
    roughly 2.2 percent of all public companies in the United
    States make such disclosures voluntarily. \1\ There's been a
    dramatic increase in spending by corporations that do not
    disclose their donors in recent years from less than $5.2
    million in 2006 to over $300 million in the 2012 Presidential
    election cycle.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         \1\ Calculation made using number of public companies that
    disclose corporate political spending divided by total number of public
    companies. Dan Strumpf, ``U.S. Public Companies Rise Again'', The Wall
    Street Journal, Markets, 5 February 2014, http://www.wsj.com/articles/
    SB10001424052702304851104579363272107177430.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        As you mentioned in the hearing, 50 percent of the S&P 500
    companies disclose their political spending voluntarily.
    However, in a cursory glance of a handful of those companies,
    the disclosure of this type of spending varies widely. Some
    public companies disclose the topline information about a
    company's policy and political priorities while others list
    specific amounts donated for races that range from candidates
    running for President to officials at the State and local
    level.
        In 2012, included on the Regulatory Plan and Unified
    Agenda, in a Proposed Rule State, was ``the Disclosure
    Regarding the Use of Corporate Resources for Political
    Activities.''
        In the Spring 2013, consideration of the political
    disclosure rule was missing from the Update to the Unified
    Agenda. Instead, the agenda item had been relegated to the list
    of Spring 2013 Long Term Actions. This move coincided with your
    arrival at the SEC.
        In the Fall of 2013, the political disclosure rule was
    omitted altogether from both the Unified Agenda as well as the
    Long Term Actions. This omission was several months into your
    first year as SEC Chair.
        Considering the timeline, it is difficult not to draw a
    line directly from the start of your time at the SEC to the
    eventual dismissal of a political spending disclosure rule.
        While the political spending disclosure rule is no longer
    on the SEC's agenda for consideration, many Americans believe
    it should be. To date, more than 1.2 million securities
    experts, individual and institutional investors, ranging from
    former SEC Chairs Levitt and Donaldson and SEC Commissioners to
    mutual funds and State Treasurers as well as members of the
    public have pressed the SEC for a rule that would require
    public companies to disclose this very material information. In
    addition, 44 Senators wrote in support of the petition to the
    SEC to take up the political disclosure rule.
        Former SEC Commissioner Luis Aguilar in a 2012 speech said
    that shareholders of corporations are ``often in the dark as to
    whether the companies they own, or contemplate owning, are
    making political expenditures. Withholding information from
    shareholders is a fundamental deprivation that undermines the
    securities regulatory framework which requires investors
    receive adequate and appropriate information, so that they can
    make informed decisions about whether to purchase, hold, or
    sell shares--and how to exercise their voting rights.''
        The founder of the largest provider of mutual funds,
    Vanguard's John C. Bogle, said, ``It's high time that the abuse
    of corporate political spending comes to an end. Disclosure of
    corporate political contributions to the corporation's
    shareholders--its owners--is the first step toward dealing with
    the potentially corrupt relationship between corporate managers
    and legislators. Shareholders must not be left in the dark
    while their money is spent without their knowledge.''
        As Chair of the SEC, do you believe that shareholders, as
    owners of the company, have the right to know about the
    corporation's spending for political purposes?
        Do you believe this information is material to investors?
    If not, why not?

    A.1. The subject of corporate political spending (and requiring
    its disclosure) is an important one on which there are strong
    and differing views. There is no specific statutory or rule-
    based disclosure requirement under the Federal securities laws
    or other Federal law mandating that public companies disclose
    information relating to their political contributions. While
    there is no specific mandate under existing law, if a company's
    corporate political spending has a material impact on its
    results of operations or financial condition (or if omission of
    disclosure on this subject would make other disclosure included
    in a filing materially misleading), disclosure to shareholders
    by the company is required.
        In addition, under the Commission's Rule 14a-8, a
    shareholder may submit a proposal for inclusion in its
    company's proxy materials seeking disclosure or other action on
    political contributions. This avenue has been used by a number
    of shareholders, with such proposals in 2016 averaging support
    of 26.1 percent of votes cast. \2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         \2\ See Gibson Dunn, ``Shareholder Proposal Developments During
    the 2016 Proxy Season'' (June 28, 2016), http://www.gibsondunn.com/
    publications/Documents/Shareholder-Proposal-Developments-2016-Proxy-
    Season.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        As I noted during the hearing, a number of other public
    companies have also made voluntary disclosures of their
    political spending. For example, a 2015 Center for Political
    Accountability report found that 87 percent of companies in the
    S&P 500 have adopted policies addressing political spending, 54
    percent of S&P 500 companies have a dedicated web page or
    similar space on their Web site for political spending
    disclosure, and 43 percent of S&P 500 companies have board
    oversight of their political contributions and expenditures.
    \3\ Further, the study noted that in 2015, 52 percent of S&P
    500 companies had a detailed policy on their Web sites
    governing political expenditures with corporate funds, and 60
    percent of S&P 500 companies provided information on which
    political entities they will or won't give money to. These
    avenues of engagement are important and to be encouraged, and I
    will continue to follow them closely.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         \3\ See Center for Political Accountability, ``The 2015 CPA-
    Zicklin Index of Corporate Political Disclosure and Accountability''
    (Oct. 8, 2015), http://files.politicalaccountability.net/index/CPA-
    Zicklin_Index_Final_with_links.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        As you know, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016
    prohibits the Commission from using any funds made available by
    the Act to finalize, issue, or implement any rule, regulation,
    or order regarding the disclosure of political contributions,
    contributions to tax exempt organizations, or dues paid to
    trade associations. I have not committed, and do not plan to
    commit, staff resources in FY16 to develop a rule regarding
    disclosure of political contributions as encompassed by the
    Appropriations Act prohibitions.