Hubbry Logo
Soft dollarSoft dollarMain
Open search
Soft dollar
Community hub
Soft dollar
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Soft dollar
Soft dollar
Soft dollar
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

The term soft dollars refers to a Wall Street practice, especially in the asset management and securities industries, and means the benefits provided to an asset manager by a broker-dealer as a result of commissions generated from a financial transaction executed by the broker-dealer for client accounts or funds managed by the asset manager.[1] In a soft dollar arrangement, the investment manager directs commissions generated by a client's or fund's transactions to a broker-dealer or other trading venue.[2] Soft dollars, in contrast to hard dollars (actual cash) which have to be reported, are incorporated into brokerage fees and paid expenses, which may not be reported separately (partly due to the difficulty in their valuation). Most investment managers follow the limitations detailed in Section 28(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.[3] In particular, if soft dollar arrangements are entered into with respect to registered investment companies and pension plans (ERISA and public plans), compliance with Section 28(e) is generally required.[4] However, hedge funds, which are generally not registered, may not be subject to the limitations of Section 28(e) and, thus, in some cases, the fund's commissions may be used for the adviser's benefit.[5] In situations where fund commissions are used outside of the Section 28(e) safe harbor, full and comprehensive disclosure must be provided to fund investors.[6]

Background and history

[edit]

In the brokerage business, soft dollars have been in use for many years. Prior to May 1, 1975 sometimes referred to as "May Day" all brokerage firms used a fixed price commission schedule published by the New York Stock Exchange;[7] the schedule was a matrix listing the number of shares in the trade on one axis, the stock's price per share on the other axis, and the corresponding commission charge in the cells of the matrix. Because broker/dealers traditionally were required to charge a fixed commission and could not compete by lowering the commission for a trade, they soon began to compete by providing additional services to their institutional clients. In the industry this became known as "bundling" services with commissions.[8]

In the early 1970s, the U.S. government investigated the brokerage industry's pricing practices. They concluded the industry was engaged in price fixing. The government told the brokerage industry that, as of May 1, 1975 it would be required to "fully negotiate" brokerage commissions with each client for each trade. As the May 1, 1975 deadline approached the brokerage industry went through several changes in an attempt to restructure itself so it could offer services and negotiate the price of each service separately. In the industry this process was known as "unbundling"[9] and it created the discount-brokerage segment of the industry.[citation needed] At the same time, the brokerage industry lobbied Congress to allow it to continue to include the cost of investment research given to institutional clients as part of the fully negotiated commission.[2] Shortly after May 1, 1975 Congress passed an amendment to Section 28 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Section 28(e) provides a "safe harbor" for any fiduciary that "pays up" from its fully negotiated commission rate to receive qualifying research or brokerage services from its broker(s).

The Securities and Exchange Commission is responsible for interpreting and enforcing Section 28(e). In Section 28(e) the definition of qualifying services is detailed and explicit, but Section 28(e) is not a rule it is just a "safe harbor". The use of client commissions to pay for services which are not within the safe harbor of Section 28(e) is not within the safe harbor. A fiduciary who "pays up" in client commissions to receive non-qualifying services must be able to defend this practice under applicable law. For pension plans subject to ERISA, a fiduciary can use client assets only for the exclusive benefit of clients and cannot use the client assets for the fiduciary's benefit.[10] Most public pension plans have similar prohibitions. For registered investment companies (such as mutual funds), Section 17(e)(1) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 generally prohibits a fund affiliate—such as the fund adviser—receiving compensation when purchasing or selling property for a registered fund.[11] As a result, for all practical purposes, brokerage arrangements for pension plans and registered investment companies must come within the Section 28(e) safe harbor or run afoul of these restrictions.

Statistical studies over several recent years and large populations of institutional trade data have revealed that the cost of executing and clearing institutional trades is between 1.25 and 1.65 cents per share.[12][dubious – discuss] Most institutional advisors pay between 3 and 5 cents per share commissions to their brokers.[13] Many of these institutional fiduciaries provide no disclosure of what "services" they are receiving for the excess over their fully negotiated commission rate. In bundled full service brokerage arrangements this lack of disclosure is particularly problematic because it makes it difficult to apply Section 28(e) tests and measure Section 28(e) compliance.

In 2018, the European Union banned Soft Dollar payments for research, as part of Mifid II.[14]

Examples

[edit]

Lets assume that ABC Capital needs ongoing access to the daily closing prices of certain securities, and receives this data from XYZ Database Services, a subsidiary of XYZ Brokerage. If an outsider would pay $12,000 per year (paid in hard cash), yet ABC directs his broker to reduce his commissions that would have been charged to XYZ, then XYZ receives $12,000. "The only one who is out any real money is the broker."[15]

An example of illegal use of undisclosed soft dollars might be when a mutual fund manager pays commissions to a broker-dealer and in return the broker-dealer provides furniture for the fund adviser's use. Likewise, the adviser to a registered mutual fund cannot send brokerage to a wire-house for providing "shelf space" and marketing favoritism for the family of funds. Such brokerage arrangements, where favors are traded in exchange for institutional clients' excess commissions have been criticized by securities regulators. Full-service brokerage bundled commission arrangements involving the exchange of brokerage firms' undisclosed proprietary services provided for institutional clients' brokerage commissions (paid in excess of a fully negotiated execution-only commission rate) can create conflicts of interest. The lack of transparency in these full-service brokerage arrangements may shield abuses from immediate detection.[16]

In soft dollar arrangements, the brokerage commissions are generally higher than they would be for an "execution only" trading relationship, and over time investment performance may suffer by the higher commission cost. Because institutional funds can trade a significant number of shares every day, the soft dollars add up quickly. Over time, investment performance may deteriorate if the soft dollars are not used to purchase research that enhances performance. However, many believe that as long as full disclosure is made, clients will gravitate to managers that use an appropriate mix of soft dollar and other arrangements.[citation needed]

In the US, although soft dollar transactions have incurred a lot of scrutiny lately, the practice is still allowed.

Similar terminology

[edit]

In Australia, soft dollars are not illegal although they are discouraged and must be disclosed in plain language terms to clients.[17] Many other jurisdictions also regulate soft dollars—sometime called "soft commissions," including the United Kingdom, Canada, Hong Kong, Singapore, Ireland, and France.[18]

In 1977, the New York Times used a headline Soft Dollars and Hard Economics to refer to a situation it described as a "declining dollar."[19]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Soft dollar

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Soft dollar arrangements, also known as client commission arrangements, constitute a mechanism in whereby portfolio managers direct client-generated brokerage commissions to broker-dealers in exchange for eligible , data, or execution services, circumventing direct cash outlays from client assets. This practice derives its legal foundation from Section 28(e) of the , which establishes a safe harbor permitting such payments provided managers deem the commissions reasonable relative to the brokerage and benefits obtained, thereby shielding them from breaches of duty in pursuing best execution. Enacted following the abolition of fixed brokerage commissions in 1975, soft dollars enable the funding of through trade order flow, a system that has persisted amid evolving market structures despite generating substantial commission volumes—historically in the tens of billions annually for institutional trades. Proponents argue that soft dollars efficiently subsidize research production benefiting multiple clients via , potentially lowering overall advisory costs compared to individualized hard-dollar payments for proprietary analysis. However, the arrangement has drawn scrutiny for embedding conflicts of interest, as managers might prioritize brokers offering superior over those providing optimal execution prices or , thereby inflating client commission expenses without explicit consent or transparency. Regulatory interventions, including the SEC's 1998 and 2006 interpretive releases, have narrowed permissible "mixed-use" services and mandated detailed disclosures in Form ADV, yet enforcement actions reveal persistent misuse, such as allocating soft dollar benefits to non-research items like office equipment or personal travel, underscoring challenges in verifying compliance. Decimalization of trading in and the rise of commission compression have diminished soft dollar viability by eroding commission pools, prompting a shift toward unbundled payments under frameworks like the SEC's guidance on share-class analysis, while international jurisdictions such as the have outright prohibited inducement-based soft dollars via MiFID II to enhance cost visibility and alignment. In the United States, soft dollars remain entrenched for eligible third-party , comprising a notable portion of institutional brokerage but facing calls for to prioritize direct client billing and mitigate hidden cost burdens.

Definition and Fundamentals

Core Definition

Soft dollars denote arrangements in which investment managers direct client brokerage commissions generated from securities trades to broker-dealers in exchange for research services, execution of trades, or other eligible products that assist in the investment decision-making process, thereby offsetting the managers' costs indirectly rather than through explicit cash payments known as hard dollars. These practices enable managers to access third-party , , or proprietary analyses without expending their own or client advisory fees, as the commissions—paid by clients—effectively "bundle" execution and non-execution services under a single mechanism. The concept hinges on the allocation of commissions, where managers select brokers not solely for the lowest execution costs but also for the value of accompanying , provided the total commission paid is deemed reasonable relative to the brokerage and research benefits received. This bundling originated as a response to the need for specialized investment in an era when direct funding for such services was constrained, allowing institutional investors to leverage scale in trading volume to procure insights that enhance portfolio performance. However, soft dollar transactions must adhere to standards, ensuring that the services obtained genuinely benefit client accounts and do not constitute improper rebates or personal benefits to the manager. In practice, eligible soft dollar services typically include objective research reports, quantitative models, or trade execution tools that provide lawful assistance in investment management, distinct from administrative or overhead expenses that would not qualify. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has historically viewed these arrangements as permissible under certain conditions, emphasizing transparency in commission sharing agreements (CSAs) where brokers credit portions of commissions toward research purchases. As of 2006, revised SEC guidance clarified that soft dollars encompass a broader range of research, including electronic formats, but exclude services like office equipment or custodial functions unrelated to investment decisions.

Relation to Section 28(e)

Section 28(e) of the , enacted as part of the 1975 amendments, establishes a safe harbor for money managers exercising investment over client accounts, shielding them from claims arising solely from directing brokerage transactions that incur commissions higher than the lowest available, provided the manager determines in good faith that such commissions are reasonable in relation to the value of the brokerage and research services received. This provision directly underpins soft dollar arrangements by legitimizing the use of client-generated commissions to obtain research and services without constituting a per se breach of the to seek best execution. Under the safe harbor, eligible research must provide lawful, appropriate assistance in decision-making, such as , , or advice on securities, while excluding non-research items like office equipment or travel expenses unless they qualify as mixed-use and allocable. Soft dollar practices rely on this framework to bundle research payments into commissions, allowing managers to avoid direct client billing for services that enhance portfolio performance, though the manager must still evaluate overall execution quality and disclose arrangements as required under SEC rules like Rule 206(4)-6. The SEC has iteratively clarified (e)'s scope through interpretive releases, notably in 1986 confirming that "" encompasses both proprietary and third-party products, and in 2006 expanding applicability to certain fixed-price principal transactions where commissions are not explicitly involved, provided analogous value assessments are made. Conduct falling outside the safe harbor—such as using commissions for clearly ineligible services—may expose managers to breach allegations or violations of antifraud provisions, emphasizing the provision's role as both enabler and boundary for soft dollar efficacy.

Distinction from Hard Dollars

Soft dollars differ from hard dollars primarily in the mechanism and source of payment for research and other eligible services provided to investment managers. In soft dollar arrangements, investment advisers direct client brokerage commissions—generated from executing securities trades—to broker-dealers in exchange for research or services, effectively bundling the cost into trade execution fees borne indirectly by client accounts. By contrast, hard dollar payments involve direct, explicit cash outlays from the adviser's own resources or the firm's profits to compensate vendors or broker-dealers for the same or similar services, without reliance on client trade commissions. This distinction arises from the regulatory framework under Section 28(e) of the , which offers a safe harbor for soft dollar practices by permitting advisers to allocate client commissions for "lawfully available" without breaching duties, provided it benefits the client. Hard dollar transactions, lacking this commission-based linkage, require advisers to treat such expenditures as their own costs, often necessitating internal budgeting, client consent for fee impacts, or separate disclosures, as they do not qualify for the same safe harbor protections. For instance, a 1998 SEC inspection of broker-dealers found soft-to-hard dollar ratios averaging 1.7:1, highlighting how soft dollars amplify the volume of services obtained relative to direct payments by leveraging trade flow. The use of soft dollars can obscure the true economic cost to clients, as commissions may exceed pure execution needs to subsidize , whereas hard dollars promote transparency through itemized billing and direct accountability, potentially aligning more closely with best execution obligations under SEC rules. However, hard dollar approaches may strain adviser profitability, as they eliminate the indirect funding mechanism, leading some firms to prefer soft dollars for scalability in acquisition—evident in practices where advisers avoid hard dollar commitments until soft dollar credits are exhausted. Empirical data from SEC examinations indicate that while soft dollars facilitate broader access without upfront client charges, they introduce agency risks, such as potential overpayment via inflated commissions, unlike the straightforward fiscal discipline of hard dollars.

Historical Development

Origins in the 1970s

The practice of using brokerage commissions to obtain research and services, later termed soft dollars, predated the 1970s but was embedded in the fixed commission structure of the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE), where rates were set above marginal costs to bundle such benefits for institutional clients. In the early 1970s, U.S. regulatory scrutiny intensified on these fixed rates, with investigations revealing elements of price coordination among brokers, prompting calls for competitive pricing to reduce costs for investors. This culminated in the Securities Acts Amendments of 1975, signed into law on June 4, 1975, which directed the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to eliminate fixed minimum commissions effective May 1, 1975—an event known as "May Day." The deregulation shifted commissions to negotiated rates, causing them to decline sharply—by approximately 50-70% initially—raising concerns among investment managers that reduced commissions would curtail access to broker-provided research essential for portfolio management. To mitigate potential disruptions, Congress incorporated Section 28(e) into the 1975 Amendments, establishing a safe harbor provision that shields money managers from fiduciary breach claims if they pay commissions exceeding the lowest available rate, provided they determine in good faith that the total amount is reasonable relative to the execution quality and research value obtained. This statutory protection explicitly recognized the dual role of commissions in covering both trade execution and research, formalizing the economic linkage between trading volume and non-cash services. Post-deregulation, soft dollar arrangements proliferated as managers directed client trades to brokers offering or third-party , effectively using client commissions to "pay" for these inputs without direct cash outlays, thereby preserving flows amid falling explicit fees. By the late , this mechanism had become a standard industry practice, with brokers competing on bundled services rather than solely on execution costs, though it introduced agency conflicts by potentially prioritizing receipt over best execution. The SEC's contemporaneous interpretive guidance affirmed that Section 28(e) applied to both internal broker and external products, setting the stage for expansive use in the ensuing decades.

Expansion and Key Milestones

The expansion of soft dollar arrangements accelerated after the 1975 deregulation of fixed brokerage commissions, as Section 28(e) of the Securities Exchange Act provided a safe harbor for investment advisers to direct client commissions toward and brokerage services without violating duties, linking broker supply to manager demand amid growing institutional trading volumes. This shift from pre-1975 "give-up" practices—where brokers recaptured portions of fixed commissions—enabled negotiable rates bundled with , fostering while subsidizing advisory inputs through portfolio execution costs. Institutional asset growth, including mutual funds expanding from $448 million in 1940 to $49 billion by 1975 and pensions from $18 billion in 1950 to $400 billion by 1975, along with technological advances in third-party , drove broader adoption. A pivotal milestone occurred in 1976 with the SEC's interpretive release (Exchange Act Release No. 12251), which clarified (e)'s protections, excluding publicly available products but affirming "lawful and appropriate assistance" like , thereby encouraging structured arrangements. The 1986 SEC release (Exchange Act Release No. 23170) marked further expansion by broadening definitions of eligible "brokerage and research services," permitting third-party payments and addressing mixed-use items, which expanded the product scope beyond execution-related aid and contributed to annual third-party soft dollar values exceeding $1 billion by the late 1990s. By 1990, soft dollar practices encompassed 30-50% of trades, with annual commissions surpassing $1 billion as of 1989, sustained through the 1990s bull market amid heightened portfolio turnover and proliferation. The SEC's 1995 proposal for enhanced disclosure (Advisers Act Release No. 1469) preceded a 1996-1997 sweep of 75 broker-dealers and 280 advisers, revealing $274 million in soft dollar payments over ten months—estimated at 32-41% of the total market—and prompting $4 million in client repayments for undisclosed uses. The resulting 1998 SEC Inspection Report confirmed the practice's scale while identifying recordkeeping and allocation deficiencies, solidifying soft dollars' role despite emerging scrutiny.

Operational Mechanics

How Soft Dollar Arrangements Function

In soft dollar arrangements, investment advisers direct client brokerage transactions to specific broker-dealers, generating commissions that are partially allocated to fund eligible research and services provided by or through the broker. The adviser executes trades using client assets, paying commissions to the broker for execution services, but a portion of those commissions—known as soft dollars—effectively reimburses the broker for supplying research products, such as market data, analytical reports, or proprietary tools, without the adviser expending its own funds or client advisory fees directly. This exchange is predicated on an agreement where the broker bundles execution and research costs, allowing the adviser to leverage client trading activity to access resources that purportedly enhance investment decision-making for those same clients. The process begins with the identifying needs and selecting brokers capable of providing them alongside execution. Upon receiving an order flow from the , the broker executes the and credits the soft dollar value—typically calculated as a markup over the pure execution —toward providers, which may include the broker's own analysts or third-party vendors. For instance, if a generates $10,000 in commissions, a broker might allocate $4,000 to execution and $6,000 in soft dollars to procure reports or software licenses, ensuring the total commission reflects both services. must track these allocations to maintain proportionality between commissions paid and received, often using commission systems to monitor usage and avoid overpayment. This mechanism contrasts with hard dollar payments by embedding research costs within variable trading expenses, which are borne by clients through brokerage fees rather than fixed advisory charges. Brokers benefit from increased order flow, as directing trades to them secures both execution and soft dollar opportunities, while advisers gain subsidized access to that informs portfolio management. However, the arrangement requires the research to be eligible under regulatory safe harbors, focusing on services that assist in decisions rather than generic overhead. Empirical tracking, such as through third-party commission sharing agreements (CSAs), allows advisers to pool commissions across brokers for flexible procurement, enhancing efficiency in resource allocation.

Eligible Services and Research

Under Section 28(e)(3) of the , eligible brokerage and services in soft dollar arrangements are defined as those providing "lawful and appropriate assistance" to money managers in the process or in the effecting of securities transactions. This safe harbor protection applies only if the services meet specific criteria: must consist of advice, analyses, or reports related to securities valuation, advisability, or industry conditions, economic factors, portfolio , or account ; brokerage services encompass transaction execution and incidental functions such as clearance, settlement, or custody required by law. Money managers must determine in that such services assist their processes, with eligibility assessed based on whether the item furnishes objective, third-party sourced or tools that enhance rather than merely duplicating internal capabilities. Eligible research services include traditional analyst reports evaluating company or performance, discussions with company executives or industry experts, and substantive seminars or conferences offering insights into market trends or strategies. Quantitative tools, such as portfolio attribution software or order execution , qualify if they provide data-driven assistance in refining or trading decisions. Market and services, including real-time quotes, financial databases, or platforms, are eligible when they deliver specialized, non-publicly available information aiding in selection or . research, focusing on factors like board composition or that influence issuer valuation, also falls within the scope. Eligible brokerage services extend beyond mere execution to include post-trade matching, settlement , short-term custody of securities, and connectivity tools like dedicated communication lines for order transmission. Trading software enabling algorithmic strategies or (DMA) qualifies as it facilitates efficient transaction handling incidental to execution. These must be temporally limited to the execution process, distinguishing them from long-term administrative functions. For mixed-use items—such as software platforms providing both and general administrative functions—only the portion reasonably allocable to eligible or brokerage may be funded via client commissions, with managers bearing the non-eligible share using their own resources and documenting the allocation methodology. Ineligible items encompass mass-market publications like newspapers, tangible assets such as or office equipment, and operational overhead including travel, meals, utilities, or marketing expenses, as these do not directly assist decisions. Third-party is permissible if the executing assumes a legal to pay the provider, ensuring the arrangement aligns with the safe harbor's intent to link services to generated commissions.

Examples of Soft Dollar Practices

One common soft dollar practice involves investment managers directing client trade orders to a specific in exchange for proprietary research reports, such as company-specific analyses or sector forecasts, which assist in making decisions. These reports are typically generated by the broker's analysts and deemed eligible under Section 28(e) if they provide lawful assistance in . Another practice entails using commission dollars to obtain access to third-party research and data services, including market analytics platforms like Bloomberg terminals, FactSet, or Haver Analytics, which deliver real-time , economic indicators, and quantitative tools. Such services qualify as soft dollar expenditures when they directly support functions, rather than general administrative needs. Soft dollars may also fund participation in broker-sponsored investment conferences or roadshows, where managers gain insights from corporate executives or industry experts, provided the content qualifies as rather than promotional activity. Additionally, execution management systems (EMS) with integrated capabilities, such as tools that incorporate , can be covered if the research component aids in order routing and performance evaluation. In practice, managers often allocate commissions across multiple brokers to balance value, with disclosures required to detail the nature and estimated costs of soft dollar benefits received. For instance, a manager might generate $1 million in annual commissions, using a portion to "pay" for $300,000 in bundled services, ensuring the total commission rate reflects both execution and components.

Regulatory Framework

US Securities Laws and Safe Harbor

Section 28(e) of the provides a statutory safe harbor for advisers and other managers exercising discretion over client accounts, shielding them from liability for breaching duties—such as the duty of best execution—solely due to directing client brokerage commissions toward brokers that provide bundled services rather than selecting the lowest commission rates available. Enacted in 1975 as part of the Securities Acts Amendments, this provision addressed post-May 1, 1975, concerns over the shift to negotiated commissions by affirming that higher commissions could be justified if they yielded valuable aiding decisions, without deeming such payments unlawful under antifraud provisions like Section 10(b) or standards in the . The safe harbor's core protection activates only upon a determination by the manager that the total commission paid is reasonable relative to the aggregate value of brokerage execution and eligible received, requiring periodic of broker performance and service utility. Eligible "brokerage and research services" under (e)(3) encompass specific categories: advice, either directly or through publications, concerning the value of securities or advisability of transactions (28(e)(3)(A)); factual analyses and reports on brokers, dealers, issuers, industries, securities, economic factors, and portfolio strategies (28(e)(3)(B)); and database access or other execution-related services incident to effecting securities transactions, such as order routing, clearance, settlement, and short-term custody (28(e)(3)(C). SEC interpretive guidance emphasizes that qualifying must offer "lawful and appropriate assistance" in rendering advice, excluding ineligible items like , mass-marketed publications not tailored to , long-term custody, or overhead costs such as compliance or resolution. For mixed-use products or services—where only a portion qualifies as research—managers must reasonably allocate costs, funding non-eligible shares from their own resources and maintaining records to substantiate compliance, while ensuring brokers both "effect" the trades and "provide" the . The SEC's 2006 interpretive release revised prior guidance to broaden applicability to innovative soft dollar structures, such as third-party research payments via client commission arrangements and agency commissions on fixed-income trades, provided brokers perform requisite functions like trade monitoring and financial responsibility. However, reliance on the safe harbor does not absolve managers of broader obligations, including full disclosure of soft dollar practices in Form ADV (Item 12), accurate books and records under Advisers Act Rule 204-2, and ongoing best execution diligence across available brokers. Arrangements falling outside the safe harbor's parameters remain subject to scrutiny under standards and may invite claims of improper client fund use, though they are not per se unlawful if demonstrably beneficial and transparent.

SEC Guidance and Interpretations

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has issued key interpretive releases to clarify the application of Section 28(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, which provides a safe harbor for money managers using client commissions to obtain brokerage and research services without breaching fiduciary duties, provided the commissions are reasonable in relation to the value received. In its 1986 interpretive release (Release No. 34-23170), the SEC defined eligible "brokerage and research services" as those that provide lawful assistance to money managers in performing investment decision-making functions, including oral and written research reports, market and economic data, advice on market developments, portfolio allocation recommendations, and execution-related services like routing and clearing. The release excluded ineligible items such as office equipment, travel expenses, and general administrative services, emphasizing that soft dollar arrangements must not involve cash rebates or credits to managers and that managers must evaluate the reasonableness of commissions based on ongoing assessments of total brokerage costs. Building on this, the SEC's 2006 guidance (Release No. 34-54165) refined the framework amid evolving market practices, substituting "client commissions" for "soft dollars" to encompass arrangements where commissions pay for both execution and , and introducing a three-part analysis for eligibility: whether the service provides (assisting or effecting transactions), is provided by or through the receiving the commission, and involves reasonable allocation for mixed-use items. This release expanded the safe harbor to include certain proprietary and third-party on equal terms, order components integral to research functions (e.g., software for analyzing , but not execution-only tools), and commissions from riskless principal transactions if explicitly charged and separately identified. It required full allocation of mixed-use services—such as used 60% for —with only the research portion eligible, and mandated that managers obtain and evaluate descriptions of research services to ensure compliance. The SEC has also addressed soft dollar practices through examinations and reports, such as the 1998 staff inspection report on soft dollar practices, which highlighted common internal controls like commission management systems, service logs, and reasonableness reviews to prevent abuse, while noting variations in documentation and allocation methods across firms. Subsequent interpretations, including a 2002 staff bulletin, reaffirmed the safe harbor's protection for managers who determine in that commissions are reasonable relative to brokerage and research value, even in directed brokerage arrangements. These guidances underscore the SEC's focus on transparency and alignment, requiring managers to periodically assess best execution and disclose soft dollar benefits under rules like Item 12 of Form ADV, without altering the core safe harbor conditions.

Disclosure and Compliance Obligations

Investment advisers registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) are required to disclose their soft dollar practices in Item 12 of Form ADV Part 2A, the firm's delivered to clients, specifying whether the adviser receives soft dollar benefits from brokers in exchange for directing client and describing the types of products or services obtained. This disclosure must encompass all soft dollar benefits, including both proprietary from executing brokers and third-party , and explain how such arrangements influence broker selection or allocation. For annual updates, advisers must report soft dollar benefits obtained during the prior year, enabling clients to assess potential impacts on brokerage costs and execution quality. Beyond Form ADV, advisers bear ongoing disclosure obligations under Section 206 of the , which prohibits fraudulent practices; failure to fully disclose soft dollar arrangements that create material conflicts—such as directing trades to brokers providing non- benefits—may constitute a breach if it disadvantages clients. To invoke the safe harbor under (e) of the , advisers must make a good-faith determination that commissions paid are reasonable in relation to the value of eligible brokerage and services received, evaluating factors like execution quality, utility, and overall cost efficiency. This requires periodic assessments to ensure soft dollars do not compromise the fiduciary duty of best execution, prioritizing client interests over personal or third-party benefits. Compliance extends to internal controls and recordkeeping under Advisers Act Rule 204-2, mandating retention of records supporting soft dollar decisions, such as allocation methodologies, commission comparisons, and research evaluations, for at least five years, though the SEC has not promulgated soft dollar-specific rules despite historical recommendations. Advisers must also incorporate soft dollar practices into their annual compliance reviews pursuant to Rule 206(4)-7, testing for adherence to policies on broker selection, benefit allocation across clients, and avoidance of ineligible services like office equipment or travel. Violations, such as using client commissions for non-research items, can trigger SEC enforcement, as seen in historical cases where inadequate documentation or disclosures led to sanctions for breaching duties.

Benefits and Economic Rationale

Access to Research and Efficiency Gains

Soft dollar arrangements enable investment managers to access proprietary , , and analytical tools from broker-dealers without expending their own advisory fees, thereby preserving capital that would otherwise be allocated to hard-dollar payments for such services. This mechanism leverages client-generated trade commissions to fund , which proponents argue democratizes access to specialized insights that individual managers might not afford independently, particularly for smaller firms managing diverse portfolios. Empirical analysis of U.S. mutual funds from 1995 to 2014 indicates that soft dollar-funded sell-side correlates with improved net returns, suggesting tangible value in enhanced capabilities. By bundling research costs into brokerage commissions, soft dollars promote efficiency in resource allocation, as the aggregated commissions from multiple clients subsidize research that provides a shared benefit akin to a public good within the portfolio. This structure mitigates the principal-agent tensions inherent in asset management by aligning broker incentives with the production of valuable research, potentially reducing overall advisory expenses since managers avoid direct outlays that could necessitate fee hikes. For instance, the practice allows managers to obtain third-party execution analysis and quantitative models, streamlining operational workflows and enabling focus on core investment strategies rather than in-house research development. Efficiency gains further manifest in scale economies, where high-volume trading generates sufficient soft dollar credits to procure comprehensive research coverage across , outperforming fragmented hard-dollar purchases that might limit depth or breadth. Studies affirm that such arrangements can lower effective research costs per client by distributing expenses over traded volume, fostering competitive advantages in information processing without proportional increases in explicit fees. However, these benefits hinge on brokers delivering research demonstrably linked to execution, as mandated under Section 28(e) of the , ensuring the subsidization yields client-oriented outcomes rather than mere cost-shifting.

Cost Allocation Arguments

Proponents of soft dollar arrangements contend that they facilitate equitable cost allocation by funding through commissions generated directly from client trades, thereby linking expenses to the portfolios that derive benefits from the research. This mechanism treats research as a or joint input in the brokerage process, where execution services inherently produce informational value that informs investment decisions across multiple accounts. By paying for research via "soft" commissions rather than hard-dollar advisory fees, managers avoid subsidizing it from their own pockets or imposing uniform charges on all clients, which could over- or under-allocate costs relative to actual usage. This allocation approximates proportionality, as higher trading volumes—often associated with active research utilization—generate more commissions to cover shared research costs, addressing the public good nature of research outputs that are difficult to meter individually within a firm. Academic analyses supporting the incentive alignment hypothesis argue that such bundling reduces agency costs between managers, brokers, and investors by incentivizing brokers to provide high-quality research tied to order flow, while empirical evidence from U.S. equity portfolios shows a positive correlation between premium soft dollar commissions and risk-adjusted performance, yielding net gains of approximately 7-13 basis points annually after higher trading costs. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's Section 28(e) safe harbor endorses this rationale by permitting managers to deem commissions reasonable if they reflect the value of eligible , provided good-faith evaluations and record-keeping ensure costs are not excessive, thus preserving standards while enabling efficient sharing of expenses that enhance overall portfolio efficiency. This framework, established post-1975 commission , recognizes that unbundled hard-dollar payments could deter production, particularly for smaller managers, by shifting the full burden away from a usage-based proxy.

Empirical Evidence of Value to Investors

Empirical studies on soft dollar arrangements have produced mixed findings regarding their impact on investor returns, with some of performance enhancements from bundled access and other analyses indicating neutral or negative net effects after accounting for costs and fees. A study of U.S. mutual funds, published in the Review of Financial Studies, found that funds leveraging sell-side analyst obtained through soft dollar brokers generated significant abnormal returns. Holdings in stocks covered by industry-expert analysts from affiliated brokers yielded 21 basis points in monthly DGTW characteristic-adjusted returns, compounding to approximately 2.52% over 12 months, compared to 4 basis points for stocks with non-expert coverage and -7 basis points without coverage; these differences were statistically significant at the 1% level. Buy trades on such stocks produced 19 basis points monthly abnormal returns, while sell trades yielded -9 basis points, enabling long-short portfolios to achieve 28 basis points monthly. Funds classified as VIP clients of these brokers exhibited 20 basis points higher monthly alpha than non-VIP clients. Causal from analyst departures showed performance declines of up to 95 basis points in difference-in-differences estimates, supporting the notion that soft dollar access facilitates valuable ideas. An earlier 2004 of institutional portfolios similarly detected a positive link between soft dollar premium commissions and risk-adjusted . A two-cent per share increase in such premiums correlated with 13 basis points higher annual returns for typical managers with 50% turnover, and Fama-French three-factor alphas rose by 0.043 quarterly per one-cent premium increase, significant at the 1% level; this pattern aligned with incentive alignment between managers and investors rather than agency extraction. In contrast, a examination of mutual funds revealed no uplift from elevated soft dollar commissions. Higher commissions per showed no association with improved risk-adjusted returns but positively correlated with advisory fees, implying that benefits, if any, fail to offset costs and may reflect agency issues rather than . Evidence from the 2018 EU MiFID II unbundling of from execution commissions further tempers claims of inherent value, as it reduced redundant analyst coverage for large firms while improving quality and market , with no observed deterioration or harm to small- and medium-sized enterprises; this suggests soft dollar subsidies may inflate supply without proportionally enhancing investor outcomes.

Criticisms and Controversies

Conflicts of Interest and Transparency Issues

Soft dollar arrangements inherently generate conflicts of interest for investment advisers, as the receipt of and services from brokers can incentivize the selection of executing brokers based on the value of those benefits rather than solely on achieving best execution for clients, potentially leading to higher commission costs borne by investors. Under of the , advisers are permitted a safe harbor to pay commissions above the lowest available rates in exchange for eligible , but this provision has been criticized for creating tensions with duties, as advisers may engage in "paying up" or directing order flow to favored brokers, compromising price efficiency and execution quality. A 1998 SEC of broker-dealers, advisers, and mutual funds revealed that such practices often involved advisers facing undisclosed conflicts, including the use of client commissions for non-research purposes like office rent or personal travel by 28% of surveyed advisers. Transparency issues exacerbate these conflicts, as clients frequently lack detailed visibility into how brokerage commissions are allocated toward soft dollar benefits, obscuring whether the research obtained justifies any incremental costs. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission rules require advisers to disclose soft dollar practices in Item 12 of Form ADV Part 2A, including broker selection criteria and potential conflicts, yet a 1998 SEC review found that only 48% of advisers provided specific details on products or services received, while 50% failed to disclose instances where clients paid higher commissions to fund soft dollars. The U.S. Government Accountability Office, in its 2003 report on mutual funds, highlighted that such disclosures are often boilerplate or buried in documents like the Statement of Additional Information, which are not routinely provided to investors, limiting their ability to assess the trade-offs between research value and execution costs. Inadequate recordkeeping further compounds opacity, enabling potential misuse without detection, as evidenced by advisers repaying approximately $4 million in commissions after SEC scrutiny of undisclosed practices. Regulatory criticisms underscore the systemic risks, with the opacity of soft dollar arrangements prompting calls for enhanced disclosure and internal controls to mitigate incentives for to prioritize personal or firm benefits over client interests. The SEC's 1998 recommendations included revising Form ADV for more precise reporting and imposing recordkeeping mandates, many of which remain unimplemented, perpetuating concerns about incomplete transparency. Similarly, the urged the SEC to evaluate mechanisms for greater on soft dollar usage, noting persistent risks of overtrading or biased broker selection that could elevate expenses without commensurate benefits. actions, such as a 2013 SEC case against LLC for approving improper soft dollar payments to an adviser, illustrate how lapses in conflict identification and disclosure can violate compliance rules, reinforcing demands for stricter oversight.

Potential Costs to Clients

Soft dollar arrangements can result in clients bearing higher trading commissions than would be necessary under competitive hard-dollar for execution alone, as bundled payments inflate the effective per . This markup, often opaque to clients, represents a direct transfer of funds from client portfolios to subsidize that may not proportionally enhance returns, with empirical analyses indicating that soft dollar commissions frequently exceed the marginal value of the research obtained. Agency costs further compound this by enabling expense shifting, where portions of client commissions fund non-research services or managerial overhead, effectively reducing net portfolio performance without client consent or benefit. Suboptimal execution quality emerges as managers direct trades toward brokers offering attractive soft dollar rebates, potentially sacrificing best price or minimal in favor of credits, which conflicts with obligations under securities laws. SEC enforcement actions have highlighted instances where such practices led to clients paying above-market rates, as seen in a 2013 case against a New York brokerage for failing to credit soft dollars properly, underscoring risks of overpayment. Studies document this empirically, with evidence that soft dollar reliance correlates with higher turnover and diminished adjusted returns, as the incentive structure prioritizes volume-generating brokers over execution efficiency. Transparency deficits in soft dollar disclosures exacerbate these costs, as clients lack granular data to verify whether research inputs justify the commission premiums, fostering principal-agent misalignments where managers capture indirect benefits at portfolio expense. Regulatory critiques, including those from the SEC, emphasize that without rigorous allocation of mixed-use services, clients subsidize ineligible items like administrative software, diluting the purported efficiency gains of bundling. Overall, while the Section 28(e) safe harbor permits these practices, accumulating evidence from academic and regulatory sources points to net welfare losses for clients through elevated, unverified costs rather than value creation.

Debates on Fiduciary Duties

The use of soft dollar arrangements has prompted ongoing debates among regulators, legal scholars, and industry practitioners regarding their compatibility with investment advisers' duties under the and other frameworks like ERISA. These duties encompass a requiring best execution of client transactions and a duty of mandating that advisers act solely in clients' interests, avoiding conflicts that prioritize the adviser's gain. Critics contend that soft dollars, by channeling client commissions toward or services that may benefit the adviser's operations broadly, risk eroding through indirect , even if ostensibly aids investment decisions. Proponents counter that such arrangements enhance access, thereby fulfilling care obligations when commissions remain reasonable relative to benefits received. Section 28(e) of the establishes a safe harbor shielding advisers from breach claims related to best execution, provided they determine in that commissions paid exceed the lowest available but are reasonable in light of the 's value in informing transactions. This provision, enacted in 1975 following congressional inquiries into trading practices, presumes research benefits clients by supporting informed decision-making, thus aligning with care absent abuse. However, the safe harbor applies narrowly to research eligibility and reasonableness; it does not immunize advisers from broader duties, such as ensuring overall best execution or avoiding undisclosed conflicts, nor does it override state laws or ERISA's stricter prohibitions on using plan assets for non-plan purposes. For instance, the U.S. Department of Labor's 1986 ERISA Technical Release clarified that Section 28(e) offers no relief to plan fiduciaries beyond the person directing trades, requiring separate evaluation to prevent prohibited transactions under ERISA Section 406(b). Opponents of soft dollars argue they inherently undermine loyalty by obscuring true trading costs and incentivizing advisers to favor brokers offering bundled over those providing superior execution at lower fees, potentially inflating client expenses by 10-20 basis points annually in some estimates from the 1990s SEC inspections. of the Comptroller of the Currency's 2007 guidance emphasized that conduct outside the safe harbor—such as using commissions for ineligible services—may constitute a breach, while inadequate disclosure of arrangements violates antifraud provisions under Section 206 of the Advisers Act. Legal analyses have proposed repealing or reforming Section 28(e), positing that its protections distort incentives and enable hidden cross-subsidization, where client funds support proprietary tools or efforts, contravening the "solely in the of" standard. Empirical critiques highlight cases where soft dollar proved duplicative or low-value, questioning good-faith determinations and exposing advisers to litigation risks despite the harbor. Defenders maintain that fiduciary compliance hinges on rigorous evaluation and documentation, with advisers obligated to allocate brokerage only to client-benefiting research and to disclose practices in Form ADV or client agreements, as reinforced by SEC interpretive releases. The 1998 SEC staff report on broker-dealer soft dollar practices underscored the harbor's role in preventing erroneous breach claims, arguing that without it, advisers might underinvest in research, harming long-term client performance. Industry guidance from 2010 advised notifying fiduciaries of disclosure duties to beneficiaries, framing soft dollars as permissible cost-sharing when research demonstrably informs portfolio strategies. Nonetheless, debates persist over the harbor's breadth, with calls for enhanced reporting—such as consent mechanisms or value audits—to better align practices with undivided loyalty, particularly amid post-2008 scrutiny of hidden fees.

Global Perspectives

EU MiFID II and Unbundling

The Markets in Financial Instruments Directive II (MiFID II), which entered into force on 3 January 2018, mandated the unbundling of costs from execution services for EU-based investment firms managing client portfolios. This prohibition on using soft commissions—brokerage fees bundled to indirectly fund —required firms to pay for investment either from their own proprietary resources or through a dedicated Research Payment Account (RPA) funded explicitly by clients with prior , detailed disclosures, and periodic reviews. The policy sought to address conflicts of interest inherent in soft dollar arrangements, where directed order flow could incentivize subpar execution or biased recommendations, thereby promoting greater transparency in cost allocation and adherence to standards. Implementation of unbundling compelled asset managers to negotiate execution and services separately, often leading to the adoption of tiered pricing models by brokers and the establishment of RPAs to pool client funds for research budgets. Compliance necessitated enhanced record-keeping, including ex-ante and ex-post assessments of value, to demonstrate that expenditures aligned with client interests under best execution obligations. By eliminating bundled payments, MiFID II effectively curtailed traditional soft dollar practices in the , shifting the burden to explicit hard-dollar outlays and forcing buy-side firms to scrutinize research utility more rigorously. Post-2018 effects included a documented decline in sell-side production, with equity research budgets contracting by approximately 30-40% in some estimates and disproportionate reductions in coverage for small- and mid-cap , as providers prioritized high-value institutional clients. Empirical analyses reveal divergent outcomes: one study of European equities found unbundling improved market efficiency by curbing redundant and enhancing , evidenced by lower trading costs and better in affected segments. Conversely, investor-level examinations indicate no substantial benefits for end-clients, with potential drawbacks from constrained access raising overall portfolio costs without commensurate alpha generation. Cross-border spillovers emerged as EU managers, facing domestic restrictions, redirected order flow to U.S. brokers to leverage soft dollar arrangements there, increasing bundled commission usage by EU-domiciled funds in non-EU markets by up to 20% in certain categories. Regulatory bodies like the (ESMA) have since issued guidance to refine RPA usage and mitigate evasion, while ongoing reviews, such as those tied to the 2024 Listing Act, propose exemptions for certain minor research to alleviate burdens on smaller firms without undermining core transparency goals. These adjustments reflect persistent debates on balancing conflict mitigation against research ecosystem vitality.

Practices in Other Jurisdictions

In Canada, soft dollar arrangements permit investment managers to use client brokerage commissions to acquire research and other eligible services, subject to regulatory oversight emphasizing transparency and best execution. The Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA) introduced National Instrument 23-102 in 2009, which requires managers to disclose soft dollar practices, ensure that goods and services benefit clients, and prioritize order execution quality over commission rebates. This framework replaced earlier policies and mandates annual reporting on commission expenditures, including breakdowns of soft dollar usage, to mitigate conflicts where higher commissions might compromise execution costs. As of 2018, regulators continued consulting on enhancements to address potential barriers to best execution posed by such arrangements. Australia lacks specific statutory prohibitions on soft dollar dealings, allowing their use for and services in exchange for order flow, though self-regulatory guidance promotes disclosure. The Financial Services Council (FSC) Guidance Note No. 10.00, revised to cover brokerage arrangements, recommends that fund managers detail soft dollar policies in offering documents and ensure benefits accrue to investors without distorting trade decisions. The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has proposed amendments to ban certain order incentives, including soft dollar benefits like free , if they impair client outcomes, as outlined in 2021 consultations, but implementation remains targeted at institutional rather than retail contexts. Practices vary by firm, with some explicitly avoiding formal soft dollar agreements to minimize perceived conflicts. In Asia, regulations differ by market but generally tolerate soft dollars with disclosure mandates to align with fiduciary standards. Singapore's Monetary Authority (MAS) guidelines from 1999 require unit trust managers to reveal soft dollar practices in prospectuses and limit benefits to those aiding investment decisions, prohibiting cash rebates that could incentivize poor execution. Hong Kong's Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) similarly caps brokerage rates to prevent inflated commissions funding rebates or soft benefits, ensuring arrangements do not compromise best execution. Japan imposes no dedicated soft dollar rules, permitting bundled research payments as long as they support client interests, per IOSCO assessments. The Singapore Exchange (SGX) explicitly authorizes trading members to receive goods and services via soft commissions for directed business. Across these markets, emphasis lies on preventing abuse through caps and transparency rather than outright unbundling, contrasting EU approaches.

Recent Developments and Future Outlook

Post-2020 Regulatory Adjustments

In 2023, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) declined to extend no-action relief previously granted to broker-dealers regarding hard dollar payments for research from firms subject to the European Union's MiFID II regime. This relief, originally issued in 2017 and extended through no-action letters, had permitted U.S. broker-dealers to accept explicit hard dollar payments for research services from EU investment firms without registering as investment advisers under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. Effective after July 3, 2023, broker-dealers are prohibited from accepting such payments unless they register as registered investment advisers (RIAs), imposing significant compliance burdens including duties, client best interest obligations, and detailed disclosures. The withdrawal stemmed from the SEC's view that the temporary relief, intended to facilitate cross-border research flows during MiFID II's initial implementation, was no longer justified amid evolving market conditions and regulatory priorities. It has disrupted procurement for EU asset managers reliant on U.S.-produced sell-side , prompting shifts toward U.S. broker-dealers already registered as RIAs or those offering bundled services under the Section 28(e) safe harbor for soft dollar arrangements. This change indirectly reinforces the persistence of soft dollar practices in the U.S., where investment advisers can continue directing client brokerage commissions toward eligible without unbundling, contrasting with MiFID II's prohibition on such bundling in the . No substantive amendments to the Section 28(e) safe harbor governing soft dollars have occurred in the U.S. since 2020, despite ongoing scrutiny of brokerage conflicts and market structure. A 2022 SEC staff bulletin emphasized enhanced disclosure and mitigation of conflicts in broker-dealer and adviser relationships but did not alter soft dollar eligibility criteria for research payments via commissions. Globally, jurisdictions outside the U.S. and EU, such as the UK post-Brexit, have maintained MiFID II-aligned unbundling requirements without notable post-2020 relaxations, limiting soft dollar equivalents. These adjustments highlight persistent tensions between U.S. commission-based research models and international hard dollar mandates, with no unified global convergence as of 2025.

Ongoing Debates and Studies

Ongoing debates center on the net value of soft dollar arrangements to investors, with proponents arguing they efficiently fund valuable that enhances portfolio and mitigates agency problems between managers and clients, while critics contend they obscure true trading costs, incentivize higher commissions over best execution, and potentially violate duties by prioritizing managerial benefits. (e) of the Securities Exchange Act provides a safe harbor for such practices if managers reasonably determine research benefits clients, but ongoing scrutiny questions whether this framework adequately ensures transparency and alignment with investor interests, as soft dollars can mask expenses that would otherwise require direct disclosure. Recent analyses highlight persistent conflicts, where asset managers may direct order flow to brokers offering favorable research bundles, potentially at the expense of execution quality, prompting calls for enhanced reporting to verify client-specific benefits. Empirical studies post-MiFID II unbundling, which separated research payments from execution commissions in the EU starting January 2018, provide mixed evidence on investor outcomes, fueling debates over adopting similar reforms in the US. A 2024 study examining European funds found no significant improvements in net returns or risk-adjusted performance following unbundling, suggesting that explicit hard-dollar research payments did not yield measurable benefits to offset administrative costs and potential reductions in research availability. Conversely, analyses of analyst coverage indicate MiFID II enhanced research quality and independence by curbing bundled incentives, with increased forecast accuracy and coverage for smaller firms, though at higher explicit costs borne by managers. Cross-border effects reveal US funds with EU twins faced spillover reductions in research access, compensated imperfectly by soft dollar premiums averaging 79 cents per dollar of forgone research, raising questions about global distortions in research markets. Emerging research challenges the robustness of soft dollar defenses, with a 2025 review concluding that empirical support for performance improvements or public good provision remains weak, as unbundling has not demonstrably harmed overall market efficiency while exposing hidden costs previously embedded in commissions. Debates persist on US policy, with some advocating preservation of the soft dollar model for its role in sustaining independent research amid rising hard-dollar expenses, contrasted by proposals for à la carte payment transparency to better align with fiduciary standards and investor demands for cost visibility. Institutions like the CFA Institute argue soft dollars inherently disserve investors by evading direct accountability, urging phase-out in favor of client-funded models, though implementation challenges in fragmented US markets continue to stall reforms.

References

  1. https://www.sec.gov/files/rules/interp/34-23170.pdf
  2. https://www.cfainstitute.org/sites/default/files/-/media/documents/code/other-codes-standards/soft-dollar-standards-corrected-2011.pdf
  3. https://www.law.gmu.edu/assets/files/publications/working_papers/04-50.pdf
  4. https://www.wealthmanagement.com/real-estate/investors-lose-out-when-advisors-use-soft-dollars
  5. https://www.sec.gov/rules-regulations/1995/02/disclosure-investment-advisers-regarding-soft-dollar-practices
  6. https://www.tradersmagazine.com/news/the-rise-and-fall-of-soft-dollars/
  7. https://www.sec.gov/news/studies/softdolr.htm
  8. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2006/07/24/06-6410/commission-guidance-regarding-client-commission-practices-under-section-28e-of-the-securities
  9. https://www.proskauer.com/uploads/broker-dealer-client-commission-soft-dollar-arrangements
  10. https://www.sec.gov/rules-regulations/2001/12/commission-guidance-scope-section-28e-exchange-act
  11. https://www.occ.gov/news-issuances/bulletins/2007/bulletin-2007-7.html
  12. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/softdollars.asp
  13. https://passiv.com/blog/soft-dollar-arrangements/
  14. https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-22-08/s72208-10.pdf
  15. https://digitalcommons.fairfield.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1102&context=business-facultypubs
  16. https://www.jstor.org/stable/725577
  17. https://rpc.cfainstitute.org/sites/default/files/-/media/documents/book/rf-publication/2000/rf-v2000-n1-3910-pdf.pdf
  18. https://www.tradersmagazine.com/news/what-are-soft-dollars-how-do-they-work-today/
  19. https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2013-273
  20. https://meketa.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/MEKETA_Soft-Dollars.pdf
  21. https://www.sec.gov/files/rules/interp/s70905/charlesschwab112505.pdf
  22. https://www.sec.gov/files/rules/interp/2006/34-54165.pdf
  23. https://www.ropesgray.com/en/insights/alerts/2006/08/sec-issues-final-guidance-on-the-use-of-soft-dollars
  24. https://www.sec.gov/about/forms/formadv-part2.pdf
  25. https://www.comply.com/resource/an-overview-of-ria-compliance-rules-regarding-soft-dollar-benefits/
  26. https://www.morganlewis.com/-/media/files/publication/presentation/speech/stone_currentsoftdollarissues-investadviserscompforum_25feb10.pdf
  27. https://www.corecls.com/risk-management-updates-rmu/investment-advisers-implementing-strong-compliance-testing-and-surveillance-protocols/
  28. https://www.bayes.citystgeorges.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/479634/softdollar-2019-8-31-Cass-version.pdf
  29. https://www.bu.edu/rbfl/files/2025/02/RBFL-V42-Final-Draft-Jackson-Zhang.docx.pdf
  30. https://ir.library.illinoisstate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1014&context=fpfil
  31. https://academic.oup.com/rfs/article-abstract/36/8/3122/7000343
  32. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1787542
  33. https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2020/10/26/the-economics-of-soft-dollars-a-review-of-the-literature-and-new-evidence-from-the-implementation-of-mifid-ii/
  34. https://www.gao.gov/assets/a238497.html
  35. https://conference.nber.org/confer/2008/bff08/evans.pdf
  36. https://openyls.law.yale.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/5abf8571-bf66-4bd3-86e2-3c79a2511070/content
  37. https://www.investmentnews.com/ria-news/sec-takes-a-hard-stance-on-soft-dollar-abuses/59158
  38. https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3950&context=dlj
  39. https://www.regcompliancewatch.com/don-t-pay-for-trade-errors-with-soft-dollars-plus-mixed-use-compliance-best-practices/
  40. https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ebsa/pdf_files/86-01.pdf
  41. https://cib.bnpparibas/app/uploads/sites/2/2018/01/factsheet-mifid-ii-payments-for-research.pdf
  42. https://www.esma.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2025-04/ESMA35-335435667-6290_Technical_advice_to_the_EC_on_amendments_to_the_research_provisions_of_the_MiFID_II_Delegated_Directive_in_the_context_of_the_Listing_Act.pdf
  43. https://www.cfainstitute.org/sites/default/files/-/media/documents/article/position-paper/future-research-us-after-mifid-ii.pdf
  44. https://www.acaglobal.com/industry-insights/should-broker-dealers-accept-hard-dollars-research-eu-money-managers-register-investment-advisers/
  45. https://www.sifma.org/resources/news/blog/correcting-the-record-mifid-ii-unbundling/
  46. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4365036
  47. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0929119924000774
  48. https://www.bwl.uni-mannheim.de/media/Lehrstuehle/bwl/Area_Finance/Finance_Area_Seminar/HWS_2024/Richard_Paper.pdf
  49. https://wilj.law.wisc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/1270/2024/01/73-102-Verzal.pdf
  50. https://www.osc.ca/sites/default/files/pdfs/irps/rule_20091009_23-102_pro-softdollar.pdf
  51. https://stikeman.com/en-ca/kh/canadian-securities-law/csa-publish-revised-rules-on-soft-dollar-arrangements
  52. https://www.asc.ca/en/news-and-publications/news-releases/2018/10/canadian-regulators-seek-comments-on-soft-dollar-arrangements
  53. https://fsc.org.au/resources-category/guidance-note/358-10gn-brokeragearrangements-revised-pdf/file
  54. https://download.asic.gov.au/media/s25phk50/cp347-published-25-august-2021.pdf
  55. https://www.equitableinvestors.com.au/about/soft-dollar
  56. https://www.mas.gov.sg/news/media-releases/1999/mas-issues-guidelines-on-cash-rebates-and-soft-dollar-commissions-for-unit-trust-managers--01-sep-1999
  57. https://www.sfc.hk/edistributionWeb/gateway/EN/consultation/conclusion?refNo=94CP1
  58. https://www.iosco.org/library/pubdocs/pdf/IOSCOPD227.pdf
  59. https://rulebook.sgx.com/rulebook/1220-soft-dollar-commissions
  60. https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/u-s-sec-decision-to-withdraw-mifid-2223994/
  61. https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/broker-dealer-research-mifid-related-6672551/
  62. https://www.greenwich.com/market-structure-technology/expiration-mifid-ii-no-action-letter
  63. https://www.sec.gov/rules-regulations/staff-guidance/trading-markets-frequently-asked-questions-4
  64. https://www.sec.gov/about/divisions-offices/division-trading-markets/broker-dealers/staff-bulletin-standards-conduct-broker-dealers-investment-advisers-conflicts-interest
  65. https://www.integrity-research.com/the-secs-enduring-rulemaking-masterpiece-the-argument-for-soft-dollars-in-the-us/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.