Comments on: The craven SEC, part 196 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/02/03/the-craven-sec-part-196/ A slice of lime in the soda Sat, 18 May 2013 18:11:35 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 By: pessimist2 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/02/03/the-craven-sec-part-196/comment-page-1/#comment-35666 pessimist2 Sun, 05 Feb 2012 05:14:12 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=12088#comment-35666 This point of view is much too simplistic. The SEC is obviously not perfect, but this is just overblown. Dealbreaker's take on it is a good counterpoint. http://dealbreaker.com/2012/02/if-the-sec-really-wanted-to-get-tough-on-securities-fraud-it-would-have-added-some-minor-inconveniences-to-its-multi-hundred-million-dollar-fines/ This point of view is much too simplistic. The SEC is obviously not perfect, but this is just overblown. Dealbreaker’s take on it is a good counterpoint.

http://dealbreaker.com/2012/02/if-the-se c-really-wanted-to-get-tough-on-securiti es-fraud-it-would-have-added-some-minor- inconveniences-to-its-multi-hundred-mill ion-dollar-fines/

]]> By: larrymotuz http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/02/03/the-craven-sec-part-196/comment-page-1/#comment-35664 larrymotuz Sun, 05 Feb 2012 00:54:51 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=12088#comment-35664 The SEC has shown, time and again, that it protects the 'industry' while not protecting those whose funds finance the 'industry'. But, anyone familiar with why the SEC was established, is well aware that it was 'producer' malfeasance--not consumer--that created it. Regulating the 'industry' without protecting a vital component of all industry--namely its consumers by regulating products--is nonsense. One protects consumers by regulating what can be brought to market. And, entering into 'settlements' at any cost is too high a price for consumers to have to pay. A settlement cannot substitute for due process when the terms of such settlements seem always to abrogate due process. The SEC has shown, time and again, that it protects the ‘industry’ while not protecting those whose funds finance the ‘industry’. But, anyone familiar with why the SEC was established, is well aware that it was ‘producer’ malfeasance–not consumer–that created it.

Regulating the ‘industry’ without protecting a vital component of all industry–namely its consumers by regulating products–is nonsense. One protects consumers by regulating what can be brought to market.

And, entering into ‘settlements’ at any cost is too high a price for consumers to have to pay. A settlement cannot substitute for due process when the terms of such settlements seem always to abrogate due process.

]]> By: youniquelikeme http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/02/03/the-craven-sec-part-196/comment-page-1/#comment-35660 youniquelikeme Sat, 04 Feb 2012 20:44:24 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=12088#comment-35660 mfw13 said, "Most of the people who work for the SEC are former Wall Street employees who are more than happy to do favors for their old buddies." And their former and future bosses as well... I would just like to add. http://www.pogo.org/pogo-files/reports/financial-oversight/revolving-regulators/fo-fra-20110513.html mfw13 said, “Most of the people who work for the SEC are former Wall Street employees who are more than happy to do favors for their old buddies.”

And their former and future bosses as well… I would just like to add.

http://www.pogo.org/pogo-files/reports/f inancial-oversight/revolving-regulators/ fo-fra-20110513.html

]]> By: mfw13 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/02/03/the-craven-sec-part-196/comment-page-1/#comment-35653 mfw13 Sat, 04 Feb 2012 01:33:32 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=12088#comment-35653 It's called regulatory capture, folks! Most of the people who work for the SEC are former Wall Street employees who are more than happy to do favors for their old buddies. It’s called regulatory capture, folks!

Most of the people who work for the SEC are former Wall Street employees who are more than happy to do favors for their old buddies.

]]> By: mrnoir http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/02/03/the-craven-sec-part-196/comment-page-1/#comment-35652 mrnoir Sat, 04 Feb 2012 01:33:28 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=12088#comment-35652 The same pattern held during the 2003-2004 mutual fund late trading scandal. The SEC granted numerous exemptions under Section 9(c) of the Investment Company Act. The exemptions enabled enabled offending investment management firms to escape the automatic bar from the industry that would otherwise be imposed by Investment Company Act Section 9(a). The same pattern held during the 2003-2004 mutual fund late trading scandal. The SEC granted numerous exemptions under Section 9(c) of the Investment Company Act. The exemptions enabled enabled offending investment management firms to escape the automatic bar from the industry that would otherwise be imposed by Investment Company Act Section 9(a).

]]> By: mrnoir http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/02/03/the-craven-sec-part-196/comment-page-1/#comment-35651 mrnoir Sat, 04 Feb 2012 01:33:23 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=12088#comment-35651 The same pattern held during the 2003-2004 mutual fund late trading scandal. The SEC granted numerous exemptions under Section 9(c) of the Investment Company Act. The exemptions enabled enabled offending investment management firms to escape the automatic bar from the industry that would otherwise be imposed by Investment Company Act Section 9(a). The same pattern held during the 2003-2004 mutual fund late trading scandal. The SEC granted numerous exemptions under Section 9(c) of the Investment Company Act. The exemptions enabled enabled offending investment management firms to escape the automatic bar from the industry that would otherwise be imposed by Investment Company Act Section 9(a).

]]>