4 ms·

- What problem does Dodd say this is going to solve? Is he trying to reduce the workload of the SEC? - Whatever the problem is, is it a problem? - Does this s

- What problem does Dodd say this is going to solve? Is he trying to reduce the workload of the SEC? - Whatever the problem is, is it a problem? - Does this solve it? - Who is paying/lobbying Dodd to do this? I imagine it wasn't on his radar until someone who stands to gain brought it to his attention. Is it just Tourette legislation? - If the result will be as bad as the article says ... how/why do we let Congress get away with fucking things up?

anigbrowl 17y ago
It would increase the workload of the SEC, though only very marginally. The SEC proposed (but then retracted) a very similar change about 3 years ago. You can read about it here: http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/2006/33-8766.pdf http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/2006/33-8766.pdf their rationale is set out on pages 17-18. tl;dr the SEC was worried that the explosion in house prices during the 90s (which raised many people's net worth above the accreditation threshold set in 1982) and the parallel increase in both the popularity and complexity of private investment offerings were tempting many people out of their financial depth. Large numbers of people borrowing against the value of their home to invest in hot deals without much understanding of the risks involved struck the SEC as a dangerous situation. Arguably, the events of the last few years proved them correct. The SEC was not trying to strangle startups (nor was it blind to the the possibility of such a result), but to maintain a barrier between overconfident homeowners and glib fund managers whose only business case was that markets tend to rise over time.
- waterlesscloud 17y ago
  Good thing the highly trained professionals on wall street weren't out of their financial depth, eh?
  - anigbrowl 17y ago
    I think most of them are doing just fine. The problem is that too many of us paid for their swimming lessons :)

anigbrowl 17y ago

It would increase the workload of the SEC, though only very marginally. The SEC proposed (but then retracted) a very similar change about 3 years ago. You can read about it here: http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/2006/33-8766.pdf http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/2006/33-8766.pdf their rationale is set out on pages 17-18. tl;dr the SEC was worried that the explosion in house prices during the 90s (which raised many people's net worth above the accreditation threshold set in 1982) and the parallel increase in both the popularity and complexity of private investment offerings were tempting many people out of their financial depth. Large numbers of people borrowing against the value of their home to invest in hot deals without much understanding of the risks involved struck the SEC as a dangerous situation. Arguably, the events of the last few years proved them correct. The SEC was not trying to strangle startups (nor was it blind to the the possibility of such a result), but to maintain a barrier between overconfident homeowners and glib fund managers whose only business case was that markets tend to rise over time.

waterlesscloud 17y ago
Good thing the highly trained professionals on wall street weren't out of their financial depth, eh?
- anigbrowl 17y ago
  I think most of them are doing just fine. The problem is that too many of us paid for their swimming lessons :)