Comments on: Blameless Blackrock A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 By: Trollmes Sun, 12 Jan 2014 15:02:16 +0000 realist50,

Short answer: You’re right, Reg FD pertains to corporate disclosure.

Long answer: Analysts cannot show one opinion to favored institutions and another to retail investors. (Should be Reg HB for Mr Blodget). That’s one thing BlackRock was trying to tease out of the data–data that only they received.

Black Rock said they’ve stopped doing it and paid for the AG’s costs. What’s the problem? Is that bullying?

Is the story of finance for the last 15 years one where heavy-handed regulators and investigators bully the largest financial operators in the world?

By: realist50 Sat, 11 Jan 2014 09:28:33 +0000 Trollmes – Reg FD has zero bearing on what SAE was doing. It applies to information disclosures by securities issuers – i.e., companies – not to disclosures by research analysts.

By: billyjoerob Fri, 10 Jan 2014 16:16:59 +0000 The irony is, BLK was using the info to trade against the analysts, not in front of them.

By: Trollmes Fri, 10 Jan 2014 15:48:22 +0000 Well, there’s Reg FD:
“In December 1999, the SEC proposed Regulation FD. Thousands of individual investors wrote the SEC and voiced their support for the regulation. But support was not unanimous. Large institutional investors, accustomed to benefiting from selectively disclosed material information, fought vigorously against the proposed regulation. They argued that fair disclosure would lead to less disclosure. In October 2000, the SEC ratified Regulation FD.”–From Wikipedia on Reg FD

Findings #26 and #27 make it clear that the success of Black Rock’s program was dependent on analysts’ “willingness to give advance information” and that Black Rock’s interest was in “front-running” analysts’ recommendations. That’s from internal Black Rock emails.

It certainly looks like Black Rock was trying to skirt Reg FD. Why should the A.G. praise that?