3 ms·

>Do you really think any company is going to hire an honest, competent ex-regulator who has made a career of fining and frustrating their top executives - and p

>Do you really think any company is going to hire an honest, competent ex-regulator who has made a career of fining and frustrating their top executives - and possibly referring them to prosecutors? Yes, absolutely. I think it's ridiculous to suggest that competent and strict regulators are not in demand by the private sector. They clearly have valuable experience, advice, and skills. A timely example is Ben Lawsky, former head of the NY DFS, who is often referred to as one of the "most feared" regulators in banking. I have no doubt he will find himself in demand by the private sector. Another example is Mary Shapiro, former head of the SEC, who now works for Promontory Financial (along with dozens of former regulators) providing consulting services and regulatory advice for the private sector. [1] >Well, yes, my point exactly. "Lots of people doing it means it's okay" is one view. So after one does public service, they should not be allowed to work in the private sector? How is that not okay? I think that people should be free to work whereever they like, provided the do not break laws. There is nothing illegal about taking a profitable position after public service. [1] http://www.promontory.com/Bios.aspx?id=2731 http://www.promontory.com/Bios.aspx?id=2731

alexqgb 12y ago
Shapiro's bio is hilarious. "The Hon. Mary Schapiro was chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission from 2009 to 2012, capping a distinguished career in government and private-sector regulation. Ms. Schapiro advises companies on corporate governance and compliance standards that meet regulatory and investor expectations." Why is this so funny? Because she was running the SEC when Jed Rakoff, the judge overseeing its settlement with BoA, publicly castigated her agency on the grounds that the deal they brokered (token fine, no admission of wrongdoing) did not "comport with the most elementary notions of justice and morality". So much for "advising companies on corporate governance and compliance standards that meet regulatory and investor expectations." And that was hardly the only bank-friendly failure on her watch. 2009-2012 is timeframe in which, famously, nobody responsible for the global-economy wrecking implosion of securities fraud on Wall St. went to jail. The DoJ said it was because the didn't have the evidence needed to bring anyone to trial. And whose job was it to gather that evidence? That's right, Mary Shapiro's. Usually, when people talk about the toothlessness of "light-touch" regulation and the rank corruption the begets regulatory capture, they cite Shapiro as an example of everything that is wrong with the system. You are literally the first person I've ever encountered who has held her up as an example of something done right. Seriously, this is like getting upset about unjust sentencing laws and using Charles Manson as a case in point. Also, about your boy Ben Lawsky? All of his high profile enforcement actions were foreign banks (Paribas, for example, is French). Hometown banks (GS, JPM, etc.) went largely untouched. I'm sure he'll have no trouble landing a job, but not because he was tough. He was selectively tough. Big difference. >"So after one does public service, they should not be allowed to work in the private sector? How is that not okay?" Dude, spare me the bullshit straw man, okay? That's not even remotely close to what I - or anyone else who has a problem with regulatory capture - has ever said. What people who follow this stuff do say is that high-ranking officials responsible for setting policy or directing law enforcement should not be allowed to accept lucrative jobs from the specific companies or industries they oversaw. Why? Because those jobs are a thinly-veiled vector for outright bribery. At minimum there needs to be a 5-7 year cooling down period before they can go to work for one of their former charges. Others say a decade, at least, if you're serious about maintaining trust in the government.

alexqgb 12y ago

Shapiro's bio is hilarious. "The Hon. Mary Schapiro was chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission from 2009 to 2012, capping a distinguished career in government and private-sector regulation. Ms. Schapiro advises companies on corporate governance and compliance standards that meet regulatory and investor expectations." Why is this so funny? Because she was running the SEC when Jed Rakoff, the judge overseeing its settlement with BoA, publicly castigated her agency on the grounds that the deal they brokered (token fine, no admission of wrongdoing) did not "comport with the most elementary notions of justice and morality". So much for "advising companies on corporate governance and compliance standards that meet regulatory and investor expectations." And that was hardly the only bank-friendly failure on her watch. 2009-2012 is timeframe in which, famously, nobody responsible for the global-economy wrecking implosion of securities fraud on Wall St. went to jail. The DoJ said it was because the didn't have the evidence needed to bring anyone to trial. And whose job was it to gather that evidence? That's right, Mary Shapiro's. Usually, when people talk about the toothlessness of "light-touch" regulation and the rank corruption the begets regulatory capture, they cite Shapiro as an example of everything that is wrong with the system. You are literally the first person I've ever encountered who has held her up as an example of something done right. Seriously, this is like getting upset about unjust sentencing laws and using Charles Manson as a case in point. Also, about your boy Ben Lawsky? All of his high profile enforcement actions were foreign banks (Paribas, for example, is French). Hometown banks (GS, JPM, etc.) went largely untouched. I'm sure he'll have no trouble landing a job, but not because he was tough. He was selectively tough. Big difference. >"So after one does public service, they should not be allowed to work in the private sector? How is that not okay?" Dude, spare me the bullshit straw man, okay? That's not even remotely close to what I - or anyone else who has a problem with regulatory capture - has ever said. What people who follow this stuff do say is that high-ranking officials responsible for setting policy or directing law enforcement should not be allowed to accept lucrative jobs from the specific companies or industries they oversaw. Why? Because those jobs are a thinly-veiled vector for outright bribery. At minimum there needs to be a 5-7 year cooling down period before they can go to work for one of their former charges. Others say a decade, at least, if you're serious about maintaining trust in the government.