The CNBC Accredited Investors article is an example of government intervention w

Question

The CNBC Accredited Investors article is an example of government intervention where we limit who can purchase a good for their own good, at least in theory, via regulation. I would call this a "soft" intervention compare to creating a whole federal agency like the FDA or CFPB. Contrary to what most people believe, financial advisors and financial planners do not have a government stamp of approval; their certifications are issued by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), a private firm created by the financial industry to regulate their own practices. Basically, the FINRA decides who can have a investment license after passing exams and other educational requirements. What are the pros and cons of the current system? Do you think it is working well or do we need more government intervention?

Explanation / Answer

Financial Industry Regulation Authority

Pros

Cons

Government intervention is not required; the system is working well. The bias against the consumer can be worked upon. It is a non-governmental agency overseen by the SEC enforcing FINRA, and, SEC rules, and, regulations.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse T
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.