The SEC's fines have about as much to do with preventing a financial meltdown as local police traffic fines have to do with preventing a murder. It's just safet

The SEC's fines have about as much to do with preventing a financial meltdown as local police traffic fines have to do with preventing a murder. It's just safety theater. I read the ruling on the Citygroup case you mentioned (I linked to the opinion elsewhere in this thread for anyone interested), it seems like the way the SEC chooses to issue the fines is the bigger contributor to their ineffectiveness than the fines themselves. I do agree that after-the-fact fines won't necessarily fix anything, and even if they do function as a deterrent their effect does have bounds, but to me it looks like the SEC is more interested in slapping banks on the wrist than actually carrying out their mission. They could cause more punishment to come to the banks then they do now, so I am confused as to why they would possibly want to be able to impose bigger fines. The way I see it, it seems to be all about running around the judiciary and nothing about the size of the fines.