The SEC, is it a good thing or bad thing for the economy.

[4berry104]

I haven't made up my mind about this, but am curious what other people believe. There is so much corruption in financial markets, its hard to see it as a bad thing. But then, I have met many who saw the SEC as a bad thing and have offered up extremely convincing arguments. Thoughts?

 

[Dutch]

I don't know the SEC has won the last 7 national championships. I guess they have helped a little.

 

[4berry104]

I don't know the SEC has won the last 7 national championships. I guess they have helped a little.

I meant the Security and Exchanges Commission, though I am a ardent supporter of the Southeastern Conference.

 

[Grandma]

The Security and Exchanges Commission might help a little, but their powers were heavily watered down.

 

[jwoodie]

The SEC was created to rein in the stock market manipulations of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Its biggest failing has been in the areas of interlocking boards of directors and executive compensation.

 

[Sallow]

The SEC needs to be expanded and populated with professionals that have no hooks into financial industry while they serve.

 

[Truthmatters]

yes it depends on who owns the rights to appoint the SEC head,

Under Bush the SEC refused to impliment the GLBact broker rules which in turn caused this whole economic mess

 

[Truthmatters]

SEC Votes for Final Rules Defining How Banks Can Be Securities Brokers
Eight Years After Passage of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, Key Provisions Will Now Be Implemented
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
2007-190
Washington, D.C., Sept. 19, 2007 - Ending eight years of stalled negotiations and impasse, the Commission today voted to adopt, jointly with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board), new rules that will finally implement the bank broker provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999. The Board will consider these final rules at its Sept. 24, 2007 meeting. The Commission and the Board consulted with and sought the concurrence of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and Office of Thrift Supervision.

 

[Truthmatters]

As adopted, Regulation R provides banks with a transitional exemption until the first day of their first fiscal year commencing after Sept. 30, 2008. This will give banks time to make any necessary changes in their systems and compliance programs and should ensure that banks have time to come into compliance with the Exchange Act provisions relating to the broker definition. This exemptive rule will become effective on the date that the Commission's current order expires, Sept. 28, 2007.


Note the date this was to be implimented

 

[Truthmatters]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsDmPEeurfA]President Bush Addresses Nation on Economic Crisis - YouTube[/ame]


note the date?

 

[Truthmatters]

September 24, 2008

 

[Truthmatters]

Sept. 30, 2008


was just days later.

They knew what would happen the minute brokers had rules to live by.


They would report the cheating the banks were doing without broker rules

 

[Truthmatters]

SEC Budget Basically Flat under Bush Plan

 

[Mac1958]

I haven't made up my mind about this, but am curious what other people believe. There is so much corruption in financial markets, its hard to see it as a bad thing. But then, I have met many who saw the SEC as a bad thing and have offered up extremely convincing arguments. Thoughts?

Wow, this is a helluva question.

Since I operate under the thumb -- er, regulations of the SEC/FINRA, my impression is that the SEC's existence and operation are pretty much like that of most governmental bureaucracies: They can play a needed and critical role, but only if and when they are operating effectively and efficiently. So that's a huge "if".

Right now, with the slow but sure implementation of Dodd/Frank, street-level regulatory efficiencies are getting worse by the day. Aside from the standard bureaucratic bottlenecks, there are multiple new redundancies and invasive client information requirements that are damaging efficiencies significantly.

And effectiveness? Well, look at the failure of the regulatory agencies to recognize and/or address the myriad issues that led up to the Meltdown: Not keeping up with new products, ratings agencies snafus, missing clear signs of impending disaster, the list goes on and on. Very few people in the industry are convinced that many, if any, of those holes have been closed.

The SEC's role is absolutely critical, if it is operating properly. But our legislators need to understand that more regulation does not necessarily equate to better regulation.

Damn, that's a helluva good question.

.

 

[Wacky Quacky]

I haven't made up my mind about this, but am curious what other people believe. There is so much corruption in financial markets, its hard to see it as a bad thing. But then, I have met many who saw the SEC as a bad thing and have offered up extremely convincing arguments. Thoughts?

Wow, this is a helluva question.

Since I operate under the thumb -- er, regulations of the SEC/FINRA, my impression is that the SEC's existence and operation are pretty much like that of most governmental bureaucracies: They can play a needed and critical role, but only if and when they are operating effectively and efficiently. So that's a huge "if".

Right now, with the slow but sure implementation of Dodd/Frank, street-level regulatory efficiencies are getting worse by the day. Aside from the standard bureaucratic bottlenecks, there are multiple new redundancies and invasive client information requirements that are damaging efficiencies significantly.

And effectiveness? Well, look at the failure of the regulatory agencies to recognize and/or address the myriad issues that led up to the Meltdown: Not keeping up with new products, ratings agencies snafus, missing clear signs of impending disaster, the list goes on and on. Very few people in the industry are convinced that many, if any, of those holes have been closed.

The SEC's role is absolutely critical, if it is operating properly. But our legislators need to understand that more regulation does not necessarily equate to better regulation.

Damn, that's a helluva good question.

.

This is what happens when you have people screaming "MORE REGULATION, MORE REGULATION! ", without regard to the regulations we already have.

Like you said, good regulation that is properly enforced is what we need. Not more regulation just for the sake of more. Sure, a new regulation to help rein in a corrupt practice sounds great, until you realize that it will never be enforced.

 

[Truthmatters]

why did the Bush admin refuse to impliment the broker reuglations that were the LAW if this country?

that was deregulation by deceit that caused the world economy to crash

 

[Wacky Quacky]

why did the Bush admin refuse to impliment the broker reuglations that were the LAW if this country?

that was deregulation by deceit that caused the world economy to crash

Because Bush was a paid off stooge, just like Obama and the rest of Washington.

 

[Sallow]

I haven't made up my mind about this, but am curious what other people believe. There is so much corruption in financial markets, its hard to see it as a bad thing. But then, I have met many who saw the SEC as a bad thing and have offered up extremely convincing arguments. Thoughts?

Wow, this is a helluva question.

Since I operate under the thumb -- er, regulations of the SEC/FINRA, my impression is that the SEC's existence and operation are pretty much like that of most governmental bureaucracies: They can play a needed and critical role, but only if and when they are operating effectively and efficiently. So that's a huge "if".

Right now, with the slow but sure implementation of Dodd/Frank, street-level regulatory efficiencies are getting worse by the day. Aside from the standard bureaucratic bottlenecks, there are multiple new redundancies and invasive client information requirements that are damaging efficiencies significantly.

And effectiveness? Well, look at the failure of the regulatory agencies to recognize and/or address the myriad issues that led up to the Meltdown: Not keeping up with new products, ratings agencies snafus, missing clear signs of impending disaster, the list goes on and on. Very few people in the industry are convinced that many, if any, of those holes have been closed.

The SEC's role is absolutely critical, if it is operating properly. But our legislators need to understand that more regulation does not necessarily equate to better regulation.

Damn, that's a helluva good question.

.

Not really.

SEC/FINRA is a strange kludge of private and public interests.

Personally? I don't think it works. It should be totally disinterested in private industries to the extent that there are in benefits to overlooking shady deals.

But it should be populated with professionals from the financial industry.

 

[Sallow]

why did the Bush admin refuse to impliment the broker reuglations that were the LAW if this country?

that was deregulation by deceit that caused the world economy to crash

Because Bush was a paid off stooge, just like Obama and the rest of Washington.

Paid by whom?

Bush came out of the oil industry and had sort of a "CEO" mentality (Although he was never an effective CEO).

Obama comes out of academia and law. They are very different in their orientations.

 

[Mac1958]

I haven't made up my mind about this, but am curious what other people believe. There is so much corruption in financial markets, its hard to see it as a bad thing. But then, I have met many who saw the SEC as a bad thing and have offered up extremely convincing arguments. Thoughts?

Wow, this is a helluva question.

Since I operate under the thumb -- er, regulations of the SEC/FINRA, my impression is that the SEC's existence and operation are pretty much like that of most governmental bureaucracies: They can play a needed and critical role, but only if and when they are operating effectively and efficiently. So that's a huge "if".

Right now, with the slow but sure implementation of Dodd/Frank, street-level regulatory efficiencies are getting worse by the day. Aside from the standard bureaucratic bottlenecks, there are multiple new redundancies and invasive client information requirements that are damaging efficiencies significantly.

And effectiveness? Well, look at the failure of the regulatory agencies to recognize and/or address the myriad issues that led up to the Meltdown: Not keeping up with new products, ratings agencies snafus, missing clear signs of impending disaster, the list goes on and on. Very few people in the industry are convinced that many, if any, of those holes have been closed.

The SEC's role is absolutely critical, if it is operating properly. But our legislators need to understand that more regulation does not necessarily equate to better regulation.

Damn, that's a helluva good question.

.

This is what happens when you have people screaming "MORE REGULATION, MORE REGULATION! ", without regard to the regulations we already have.

Like you said, good regulation that is properly enforced is what we need. Not more regulation just for the sake of more. Sure, a new regulation to help rein in a corrupt practice sounds great, until you realize that it will never be enforced.

Yep, one thing our "leaders" (cough) just love to do is knee-jerk in reaction to any given problem, throw up their hands in victory, run straight to the teevee cameras to preen, and then immediately call their campaign contributors.

Like clockwork.

.