The SEC is harsher on Dell than on Blankfein

By Felix Salmon
July 22, 2010
$100 million settlement with the SEC is notable for the fact that Michael Dell is personally being fined as well:

" data-share-img="" data-share="twitter,facebook,linkedin,reddit,google" data-share-count="true">

Dell’s $100 million settlement with the SEC is notable for the fact that Michael Dell is personally being fined as well:

The SEC’s allegations with respect to Mr. Dell and his settlement are limited to the alleged failure to provide adequate disclosures with respect to the company’s commercial relationship with Intel prior to Fiscal 2008…

Under his settlement, Mr. Dell has consented to a permanent injunction against future violations of these negligence-based provisions and other non-fraud based provisions of certain federal securities laws and SEC rules. In addition, Mr. Dell has agreed to pay a civil monetary penalty of $4 million.

The size of the penalty, here, is less important than its existence: Dell is coughing up a $4 million fine for allegedly failing to provide adequate disclosures while chairman and CEO of the company.

Now cast your mind back to the Goldman Sachs settlement, where Goldman, too, was accused of failing to provide adequate disclosures. In that case, the chairman and CEO of the company, Lloyd Blankfein, paid no fine whatsoever.

A lot of people were expecting that Blankfein might have to resign as part of the SEC settlement. But in fact he didn’t even get a Dell-style slap. Maybe there’s no realistic way that Blankfein could stay on as chairman and CEO after paying the fine; Dell, as the founder of the company, is in a slightly different position. But this case does underline that the SEC wasn’t nearly as tough on Goldman as it might have been.

More From Felix Salmon
Post Felix
The Piketty pessimist
The most expensive lottery ticket in the world
The problems of HFT, Joe Stiglitz edition
Private equity math, Nuveen edition
Five explanations for Greece’s bond yield
Comments
2 comments so far

That’s a little unfair, in that in the Dell situation the CEO was directly aware of what was going on, whereas with GS there was not a case of him directly telling the Fab ‘lie to sell our crappy bonds’. It’s a bit of apples to oranges in my opinion, and in all likelihood this settlement in GS’s case will probably force Blankfein to resign much earlier than he might have otherwise.

Ugh, somehow it feels a little dirty coming to GS defense, but I just think the mudslinging is starting to go too far. Time to bring Chuck Prince or Bob Rubin or Hank Greenberg (or any of another dozen or so former top execs) into play as having a much bigger hand in the causes of the recession than trading practices at GS. Just saying…

Posted by CDNrebel | Report as abusive

Might this having to do with the different political campaigns Blankfein and Dell have donate to?

Posted by MalJoe | Report as abusive
Post Your Comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/