Discussion in 'Wall St. News' started by libertad, Sep 21, 2008.
My friend, Dave Patch, who drives me nuts at times, started a site called, 'Investigationthesec.com' years ago. the media, that asshole at 'nakedshorts', everyone crucified him as a nut.
This isnt' unknown. Sometimes it's the everyday person who can see things the moneychangers can't, or wont'. Tell me. What do we do now?
Think they carry Cox out this week? We love scapegoats. He's a deserving one.
By the way. Plenty of stuff working its way to and thru the courts. Cox was a Republican Senator, and before that a Securities Attorney. Brother, you ain't seen nuthin' yet.
speak of the devil...... and I mean the devil!!!!!
SEC chairman under fire
By Joanna Chung in Washington and Greg Farrell in New York
Published: September 21 2008 21:42 | Last updated: September 21 2008 21:42
When Christopher Cox took charge of the US Securities and Exchange Commission, Wall Street had five large stand-alone investment banks. Now, there are two, fighting for survival.
By serving as the countryâs main markets regulator during the most catastrophic destruction of capital since the 1930s, Mr Cox, a free market champion, has somehow turned out to be one of the most despised men on Wall Street. Some privately say that he has even surpassed Eliot Spitzer, the former New York attorney-general who was Wall Streetâs previous bogeyman, by a wide margin.
The reasons for the contempt are many and complex and, his defenders argue, misplaced. They say Mr Cox has acted within his limited powers to combat a financial crisis that has other, deeper roots.
Yet the criticism has become more strident in recent days, after the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers and the sale of Merrill Lynch to Bank of America. John McCain, the Republican presidential candidate, has called for Mr Cox to be fired.
One of the main reasons for the feeling against Mr Cox is the widely held belief on Wall Street that he acted too slowly to address claims that hedge funds and other investors were short-selling stocks of investment banks, in effect driving their share prices to the ground.
If the SEC had put in place a rule against abusive ânakedâ short-selling earlier, they argue, or re-introduced the âuptickâ rule aimed at stopping unrelenting short-selling, Lehman, Merrill and even Bear Stearns, which collapsed in March, might have withstood the market pressure.
Emergency measures were taken over the summer and last week the SEC installed rules to combat potential abuse. But the agency was forced immediately to take emergency measures, including one taken first by the UK markets regulator.
When Bear was on the brink of failure, Mr Cox was noticeably absent as Hank Paulson, Treasury secretary, and Ben Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman, forged a rescue plan. The SECâs own programme of oversight, which lowered capital requirements, could have contributed to excess risk-taking.
The SEC has monitored investment bank holding companies and their broker-dealer subsidiaries as âconsolidated supervised entities,â mostly by determining whether they were adequately capitalised to protect their customersâ needs.
But some claim the commission has largely focused on whether the broker-dealers were adequately capitalised. After Bear fell, the SEC made adjustments. But, months later, two more investment banks ran into trouble.
âI know that the SEC has had a larger role in understanding and monitoring the markets in the past year than has been stated,â says Roel Campos, a former SEC commissioner who supports Mr Cox. âBut the perception of the agency at this point wrongly appears to be that of an absentee landlord.â
Part of Mr Coxâs problem, say former commissioners and long-time Washington observers, can be found in his background and in his understanding of the âmission.â When he arrived at the SEC in 2005, it was to replace William Donaldson, who was unpopular with the administration of George W. Bush.
Mr Cox, a Congressman for 17 years, concentrated on developing unanimity behind the SECâs proposals. But in the past year, these former commissioners say, his focus on a united front served him poorly in the face of mounting troubles in the financial sector.
âHistory will judge the quality of our response to this economic crisis, but now is not the time for those of us in the trenches to be distracted by the ebb and flow of the current election campaign,â Mr Cox has said, in response to
âIn this market crisis, the men and women of the SEC have responded valiantly as they always do â with the utmost dedication and professionalism.â
Still, questions over the SECâs response is likely to fuel the debate about how to revamp the financial regulatory system.
âThe SEC is a great agency for disclosure and anti-fraud purposes but Iâm not sure it is the right institution to be a prudential regulator,â says John Coffee, a law professor at Columbia University.
Harvey Pitt, a former SEC chairman, in defence of Mr Cox, says: âThe SEC performs critical functions and those functions need to be part of our financial regulatory system but the system we have is completely and totally outmoded . . . ultimately there will be more than enough blame to go around.â
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008
What I am certain of is the increase in pay when a SEC employee crosses over to the corporate legal side....
What this results in is quite clear.
Not entirely different from the brokerage industry when it decided to pay brokers on a straight commission business.
Since high risk assets were harder to sell, the commissions were higher....
Look where they are now.
Look at the average performance.
Fees and inducements crossed from the IBs, SEC, Rating Agencies, and the salesmen......
Now look at the result......
It is quite clear how to rectify the basics .....
School is out as to whether greed continues to win out over just doing a good job for the buying customer who trusts the salesman......
Trust ? What trust ?
i started actually believing what you were saying until "moneychangers", which is synonymous with conspiracy theory wackjobs
Separate names with a comma.