# Regulatory cost `kaal:entity:regulatory-cost` **Status.** derived This node is assembled mechanically from the 9 claims that carry the concept tag `regulatory-cost`. It is a roster of what the corpus says under this term. It is **not** an adjudicated definition: no single statement here has been ruled canonical, and no first-appearance call has been made. Read the claims and judge for yourself. ## Every claim under this term 9 claims across 6 works, 2010 to 2016. **2010** - [1558614-009](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/1558614-009) [mechanism/argued] -- The cost of tightening directors' duty to monitor risk depends not just on how far the requirement is tightened but on how it is tightened: the mix of agency enforcement versus civil litigation, and of substantive versus procedural change, drives the shape of the cost curve. > from a cost perspective the way in which the monitoring requirement be- comes more stringent matters. The mix between agency enforcement and civil litigation matters; the mix between changes to substantive and procedural rules matters Painter and Kaal, Initial Reflections on an Evolving Standard Constraints on Risk Taking by Directors and Officers in (2010). SSRN: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1558614 - [1558614-010](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/1558614-010) [mechanism/argued] -- The same combination of substantive and procedural rules imposes different monitoring costs in different cultural settings, so a rule package that is cheap in one country can be expensive in another. > The cultural context also matters; a particular combination of substantive and procedural rules in one setting—for example, the U.S.—may result in a sharply rising solid line whereas the same combination in another setting Painter and Kaal, Initial Reflections on an Evolving Standard Constraints on Risk Taking by Directors and Officers in (2010). SSRN: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1558614 - [1558614-040](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/1558614-040) [predictive/argued] -- Because of the political climate and concern about the social externalities of business failure, monitoring requirements and their enforcement procedures are likely to become more severe regardless of whether the increased monitoring costs are offset by fewer bad business decisions. > The severity of the substantive moni- toring requirement and the procedures used to enforce it may in- crease regardless of net costs to the company. Painter and Kaal, Initial Reflections on an Evolving Standard Constraints on Risk Taking by Directors and Officers in (2010). SSRN: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1558614 **2013** - [2273857-037](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/2273857-037) [empirical/asserted] -- Foreign issuers began delisting from United States exchanges after the enactment of Section 404 of Sarbanes-Oxley and identified that section as a leading cause of their decision to delist. > Foreign issuers began to delist from U.S. exchanges after the enactment of section 404, referred to this section as a leading cause for their decision to delist. Wulf A. Kaal, Dynamic Regulation of the Financial Services Industry (2013). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2273857 **2014** - [kaal-2014-dynamicregulationviagove-002](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/kaal-2014-dynamicregulationviagove-002) [mechanism/argued] -- Anticipatory dynamic elements in regulation reduce the need for costly and suboptimal ex post trial and error experimentation with stable and presumptively optimal rules. > Anticipatory dynamic elements in regulation can help minimize costly and suboptimal ex-post trial-and-error experimentation with stable and presump- tively optimal rules. Kaal, Dynamic Regulation via Governmental Contracts (2014) - [kaal-2014-dynamicregulationviagove-018](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/kaal-2014-dynamicregulationviagove-018) [condition/argued] -- Costly regulatory cycles become less likely if the regulatory framework integrates dynamically adapting elements, because rule revisions, revocations, and reenactments become less necessary. > Costly regulatory cycles are less likely to exist if the existing regulatory framework integrates dynamically adapting elements in the rulemaking process because rule revisions, revoca- tions, and reenactments become less likely. Kaal, Dynamic Regulation via Governmental Contracts (2014) **2016** - [2732915-001](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/2732915-001) [empirical/evidenced] -- Five years after the Dodd-Frank Act, the private fund industry is most affected by the uncertainty and the higher costs the Act generates, yet on multiple metrics the industry is coping well with the evolving post Dodd-Frank regulatory landscape. > The findings in this study suggest that the industry is mostly affected by the uncertainty and higher costs associated with the Act, but under multiple metrics the industry appears to be coping well overall with the evolving post Dodd- Frank Act regulatory landscape. Wulf A. Kaal, The Private Fund Industry Five Years after the Dodd-Frank Act – A Survey Study (2016). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2732915 - [2740477-025](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/2740477-025) [failure/argued] *(failure mode)* -- The current process of rule revisions, amendments, and repeals used to fix the inevitable shortcomings of stable rules is costly, time consuming, and in the authors' estimation cannot keep track of future innovations and the regulatory needs they create. > The current process of rule revisions, amendments, and repeals to address inevitable shortcomings of stable rules is costly, time-consuming, and cannot in our estimation keep track of future innovations and corresponding regulatory needs. Wulf A. Kaal, Erik P.M. Vermeulen, Venture Capital as Dynamic Regulation of Disruptive Innovation (2016). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2740477 - [2808132-027](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/2808132-027) [failure/argued] *(failure mode)* -- The current process of rule revisions, amendments, and repeals used to correct the inevitable shortcomings of stable rules is costly and time-consuming, and in the authors' estimation it cannot keep track of future innovations and their corresponding regulatory needs. > important for rulemaking. The current process of rule revisions, amendments, and repeals to address inevitable shortcomings of stable rules is costly, time-consuming, and cannot, in our estimation, keep track of future innovations and corresponding regulatory needs. Wulf A. Kaal, Erik P.M. Vermeulen, How to Regulate Disruptive Innovation - From Facts to Data (2016). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2808132 ## Verify Every claim above resolves to a record carrying a verbatim source quote, the sha256 of the source PDF, and a preformatted citation. Nothing here asks to be taken on trust. curl -s https://wulfkaal.github.io/entities/regulatory-cost.md | sha256sum **Canonical form.** This markdown file is the canonical hashed representation of this entity node. Its sha256 is the content hash.