3 ms·

I'd gripe about the lameness of the SEC, except that I can mention that back in... 2005, 2007, or so, the SEC was taking in approximately $600 million a year in

I'd gripe about the lameness of the SEC, except that I can mention that back in... 2005, 2007, or so, the SEC was taking in approximately $600 million a year in fees, of which Congress gave them back approximately $100 million for operating budget. Congress was milking the SEC as a profit center. The SEC couldn't staff up to take on more workload, because Congress held the purse strings and (mis)appropriated the fees meant to pay for same. Another example of our "pay to play" business culture.

beagle3 15y ago
> The SEC couldn't staff up to take on more workload, because Congress held the purse strings and (mis)appropriated the fees meant to pay for same. You imply the SEC actually wants to do their job, which is not true, as has been demonstrated by e.g. Markopolos in the case of the Madoff, and many others. The SEC has been captive (in the sense of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture ) for decades.
- pasbesoin 15y ago
  I see what you mean about the implication. It may vary somewhat between the career and the political members. I actually know a fairly senior SEC staff member (although I have my figures separately from news reporting, as best I remember them), and on that basis I understand that there are levels of management that would like nothing more than to be given the resources to be more effective. As for some (all?) of the people running the show, in my personal opinion (not speaking for this other person), I agree with you. They don't express it openly, but in my observation I've watched some of this person's hope, or at least enthusiasm when the topic is brought up, dim as the 1000 headcount bump that was promised a few years ago has continued to be delayed, and delayed... and delayed. (The bump was orginally intended to boost the roles most needed to increase effective regulation. As described, it actually sounded rather positive. I don't know how that may have morphed, in the meantime -- aside from never (yet) coming through.)

beagle3 15y ago

> The SEC couldn't staff up to take on more workload, because Congress held the purse strings and (mis)appropriated the fees meant to pay for same. You imply the SEC actually wants to do their job, which is not true, as has been demonstrated by e.g. Markopolos in the case of the Madoff, and many others. The SEC has been captive (in the sense of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture ) for decades.

pasbesoin 15y ago
I see what you mean about the implication. It may vary somewhat between the career and the political members. I actually know a fairly senior SEC staff member (although I have my figures separately from news reporting, as best I remember them), and on that basis I understand that there are levels of management that would like nothing more than to be given the resources to be more effective. As for some (all?) of the people running the show, in my personal opinion (not speaking for this other person), I agree with you. They don't express it openly, but in my observation I've watched some of this person's hope, or at least enthusiasm when the topic is brought up, dim as the 1000 headcount bump that was promised a few years ago has continued to be delayed, and delayed... and delayed. (The bump was orginally intended to boost the roles most needed to increase effective regulation. As described, it actually sounded rather positive. I don't know how that may have morphed, in the meantime -- aside from never (yet) coming through.)