4 ms·

You really should. It's not about profit incentives, it's about proper use of their resources. Squashing tiny companies might make them feel better, but it's n

You really should. It's not about profit incentives, it's about proper use of their resources. Squashing tiny companies might make them feel better, but it's not impactful. Going after companies defrauding investors / playing it fast and loose for millions is how you clean up finance.

knorby 11y ago
The SEC has incentive to stop growth of things it would shut down. Stopping scams is a big part of what they do, and a lot of the sorts of basic fraudsters that exist look more like this site than Goldman Sachs. The SEC needs to do both, and I assume those divisions are composed of very different people.
dragonwriter 11y ago
> Squashing tiny companies might make them feel better, but it's not impactful. Going after companies defrauding investors / playing it fast and loose for millions is how you clean up finance. Putting out big fires like that is a good -- but expensive -- way to grab headlines, sure. Something the SEC definitely needs to do to the extent it can. Dealing with small things like a little market that lets you bet real money on company valuations in a market with deliberately falsified trade histories is how you prevent something from becoming one of those big fires, relatively cheaply for all involved, and before lots of people get hurt by it. Also an important thing for the SEC to do.