IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Evaluating the SEC Review of Commercial Banks: Evidence from Comment Letters

Listed author(s):
  • Victor Valdivia


    (City University of New York)

Registered author(s):

    This paper examines whether the oversight provided by the SEC over commercial banks was appropriate in the period immediately preceding the end of the recent real-estate boom. The approach followed here is to first identify the variables that are of interest to those who invest in banks, and then to present evidence from comment letters to identify the areas in which the SEC actually focuses on . These two results are then compared to determine if the SEC's review efforts are aligned with the interests of bank investors. The results are mixed: in some instances the SEC focuses on the same areas as investors, but in other cases it does not – either because the SEC does not focus on areas of interest to investors, or because the SEC focuses in areas that are of questionable or no interest to investors. Even in cases in which the SEC and investors' interests are aligned, however, investors would benefit from enhanced disclosures. Overall, the paper suggests specific improvements to the SEC review process by identifying areas in which the SEC should focus on, and by suggesting areas of improved disclosure. Finally, this paper also examines the attributes of banks that generated issues upon SEC review.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    Article provided by AccessEcon in its journal Economics Bulletin.

    Volume (Year): 30 (2010)
    Issue (Month): 1 ()
    Pages: 234-246

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:ebl:ecbull:eb-09-00371
    Contact details of provider:

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ebl:ecbull:eb-09-00371. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (John P. Conley)

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.