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, i

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.