3 ms·

So I take it you're placing the blame with the SEC, and not the notion of financial regulations in general? I think a lot of people do believe that the financi

So I take it you're placing the blame with the SEC, and not the notion of financial regulations in general? I think a lot of people do believe that the financial sector has a lot to answer for that it still hasn't answered since 2008. The SEC does seem to be taking advantage of that by implying that an us vs. them situation exists between it and the financial sector. That being said, if the SEC believes that stiffer penalties need to be put in place because the leadership there honestly believes that the financial system is out of control, is that really so bad? So what if it's in the context of a press hit? Isn't that how organizations all talk to the public today, anyway? I do agree with you that judicial oversight is most certainly necessary. If you get a traffic ticket you can take it to a traffic court, even. Why should it be so different in the case of securities violations?

cbs 15y ago
if the SEC believes that stiffer penalties need to be put in place because the leadership there honestly believes that the financial system is out of control, is that really so bad? On face value that wouldn't seem bad, but I'm personally not interested in exploring that case, because as it stands the SEC doesn't seem to believe that the financial system is out of control. If they did do so, they would make use of the tools they already have. Take a look at the case SEC v. Citygroup, the judge refused a Consent Judgement and the opinion outlines the ways in which the SEC's is really dropping the ball with the authority they do have, and just giving City a slap on the wrist, it even goes as far as to say that: As for common experience, a consent judgment that does not involve any admissions [of wrongdoing on the part of Citygroup] and that results in only very modest penalties is just as frequently viewed, particularly in the business community, as a cost of doing business imposed by having to maintain a working relationship with a regulatory agency, rather than as any indication of where the real truth lies. This, indeed, is Citigroup's position in this very case From: http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/cases/show.php?db=special&id=138 http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/cases/show.php?db=special&i... As little as admission of wrongdoing (or taking this to go to court and City losing) would make it possible for those people wronged by Citygroup to peruse them in civil court (they technically always could, but read the opinion to see why it makes a huge difference). If the S.E.C cared about getting the financial system under control, this would be an easy step for them to take. Also, they're looking to be able to impose their new fines without judicial review which is completely different issue from the size of the fines.

cbs 15y ago

if the SEC believes that stiffer penalties need to be put in place because the leadership there honestly believes that the financial system is out of control, is that really so bad? On face value that wouldn't seem bad, but I'm personally not interested in exploring that case, because as it stands the SEC doesn't seem to believe that the financial system is out of control. If they did do so, they would make use of the tools they already have. Take a look at the case SEC v. Citygroup, the judge refused a Consent Judgement and the opinion outlines the ways in which the SEC's is really dropping the ball with the authority they do have, and just giving City a slap on the wrist, it even goes as far as to say that: As for common experience, a consent judgment that does not involve any admissions [of wrongdoing on the part of Citygroup] and that results in only very modest penalties is just as frequently viewed, particularly in the business community, as a cost of doing business imposed by having to maintain a working relationship with a regulatory agency, rather than as any indication of where the real truth lies. This, indeed, is Citigroup's position in this very case From: http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/cases/show.php?db=special&id=138 http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/cases/show.php?db=special&i... As little as admission of wrongdoing (or taking this to go to court and City losing) would make it possible for those people wronged by Citygroup to peruse them in civil court (they technically always could, but read the opinion to see why it makes a huge difference). If the S.E.C cared about getting the financial system under control, this would be an easy step for them to take. Also, they're looking to be able to impose their new fines without judicial review which is completely different issue from the size of the fines.