In today’s Wall Street Journal, an editorial applauded the Supreme Court for ruling in Credit Suisse v. Billing that investors could not sue investment banks under anti-trust law. They like Justice Stevens’s concurring opinion:
After the initial purchase, the prices of newly issued stocks or bonds are determined by competition among the vast multitude of other securities traded in a free market. To suggest that an underwriting syndicate can restrain trade in that market by manipulating the terms of [initial public offerings] (IPOs) is frivolous.
This is a red herring. If the underwriting syndicate can get super normal profits through commissions during the IPO, subsequent trading is moot.
The main finding in the Breyer Opinion (6 joining, 1 concurring, 1 abstaining and 1 dissenting):
In sum, an antitrust action in this context is accompanied by a substantial risk of injury to the securities markets and by a diminished need for antitrust enforcement to address anticompetitive conduct. Together these considerations indicate a serious conflict between application of the antitrust laws and proper enforcement of the securities law.
I agree that there is a fundamental conflict between Justice and/or FTC pursuing anti-trust claims and SEC regulating securities. But this is not saying that there should be no anti-trust enforcement. SEC should enforce anti-trust laws.
Here’s what they can expect to reap.