Key Takeaways
- • MFA submitted a formal comment letter to FINRA urging preservation of the regulator's principles-based best-execution framework, arguing flexibility is essential as U.S. equity market structure evolves.
- • The principles-based approach allows firms to evaluate full execution outcomes—including liquidity, market impact, information leakage, execution certainty, speed, and transaction costs—rather than relying on prescriptive routing or price requirements.
- • MFA Chief Legal Officer Jennifer Han stated that "investors are best served by firms that take a variety of investor goals into account when seeking best execution," positioning flexible standards as supportive of efficient markets and better customer outcomes.
- • Regulatory uncertainty surrounding potential SEC rescission of Rule 611 of Regulation NMS complicates FINRA's modernization efforts; MFA argues any best-execution guidance revisions should await clarity on broader SEC rulemaking outcomes.
- • The comment letter emphasizes that prescriptive routing mandates risk preventing firms from deploying execution strategies that best serve customers, particularly for large and complex trades where multiple execution quality factors extend beyond displayed price alone.
Summary
The Managed Funds Association (MFA) has formally advocated for the retention of FINRA's principles-based best-execution framework as the regulatory authority updates its guidance. In a comment letter submitted Friday, MFA contended that maintaining flexibility in best-execution standards will enable firms to navigate an evolving equity market structure while continuing to serve investor interests effectively.
The core of MFA's position centers on the operational flexibility that principles-based regulation provides. Unlike prescriptive frameworks that mandate specific routing or price requirements, the current approach permits firms to evaluate the full constellation of factors affecting execution quality on a case-by-case basis. These factors include liquidity availability, anticipated market impact, information leakage risk, execution certainty, transaction speed, and overall transaction costs. For institutional trades of substantial size or complexity, this holistic assessment often yields superior outcomes compared to naive price-prioritization models.
Jennifer Han, MFA's Chief Legal Officer, framed the issue as fundamentally pro-investor, stating that "investors are best served by firms that take a variety of investor goals into account when seeking best execution." Han further noted that FINRA's flexible framework "supports more efficient markets and better outcomes for investors," positioning the MFA's advocacy as aligned with market efficiency and customer welfare rather than merely accommodating industry convenience.
A significant complicating factor underpins MFA's timing and emphasis: the SEC is actively considering rescission of Rule 611 of Regulation NMS, which governs order routing mechanics across the fragmented U.S. equity market. This regulatory uncertainty creates ambiguity regarding which rules will ultimately govern order flow. MFA's letter argues that FINRA should defer material revisions to best-execution guidance until the SEC's rulemaking process concludes, as changes to underlying order-routing rules could render newly adopted FINRA guidance obsolete or misaligned with the regulatory landscape. This sequencing argument reflects institutional investors' preference for regulatory coherence and suggests that premature FINRA action could create compliance complexity if the SEC's Rule 611 decision subsequently mandates operational adjustments.
The core of MFA's position centers on the operational flexibility that principles-based regulation provides. Unlike prescriptive frameworks that mandate specific routing or price requirements, the current approach permits firms to evaluate the full constellation of factors affecting execution quality on a case-by-case basis. These factors include liquidity availability, anticipated market impact, information leakage risk, execution certainty, transaction speed, and overall transaction costs. For institutional trades of substantial size or complexity, this holistic assessment often yields superior outcomes compared to naive price-prioritization models.
Jennifer Han, MFA's Chief Legal Officer, framed the issue as fundamentally pro-investor, stating that "investors are best served by firms that take a variety of investor goals into account when seeking best execution." Han further noted that FINRA's flexible framework "supports more efficient markets and better outcomes for investors," positioning the MFA's advocacy as aligned with market efficiency and customer welfare rather than merely accommodating industry convenience.
A significant complicating factor underpins MFA's timing and emphasis: the SEC is actively considering rescission of Rule 611 of Regulation NMS, which governs order routing mechanics across the fragmented U.S. equity market. This regulatory uncertainty creates ambiguity regarding which rules will ultimately govern order flow. MFA's letter argues that FINRA should defer material revisions to best-execution guidance until the SEC's rulemaking process concludes, as changes to underlying order-routing rules could render newly adopted FINRA guidance obsolete or misaligned with the regulatory landscape. This sequencing argument reflects institutional investors' preference for regulatory coherence and suggests that premature FINRA action could create compliance complexity if the SEC's Rule 611 decision subsequently mandates operational adjustments.
Go deeper than the headline
Research every firm in this story, track the ones that matter and get the daily briefing — free for 7 days.