Will SEC escape RIFs due to large number of exits?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the sec should make Assistant Directors and the Chief of the office do case work as the non-Assitant Directors do all the work and heavy lifting

The managers in my group just set up meetings and sit on documents for months. They do none of the drafting or even reviewing. Never get comments from them on anything.

I don’t know whether to be appalled or glad I’m not alone 🫠

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m sure that people on this board know the details.

My GUESS: the agency is targeting a specific headcount (probably 2019 levels). They probably have 8-12 months to get there, one way or another.

Note that project 2025 says nothing about big cuts to the agency.

Project 2025 also didn't dismantle USAID, yet here we are.

You obviously didn’t read it. They didn’t use the word “dismantle” but might as well have. In contrast, the small chapter on the SEC is boring and suggests minor reforms.

Keep telling yourself that. You can use semantics all you want, but there is no guidebook anymore. The SEC CBA was also supposedly “strong” 🙄

[Anonymous]

At another FIRREA. I don't know but I really think they want to fire people, across government, and in a substantial amount from every agency. In the blow-up cabinet meeting, when Elon was yelling at Rubio for not firing enough people, Rubio stated that they had already had 1500 people retire. Musk said that he needed to FIRE people-- not just work with more regular/voluntary attrition. Rubio sarcastically asked if he should stop the retirements so that he could fire them instead. And then at least in a few RIF-related leaks, people have reported that retirement-based attrition, people who took the Fork, and so on will NOT be counted towards the total percentage to be fired.

They are obviously doing a great job getting people to leave because of the toxic environment but I do think they want to make a huge spectacle of it. And for that reason, I don't think anyone is safe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At another FIRREA. I don't know but I really think they want to fire people, across government, and in a substantial amount from every agency. In the blow-up cabinet meeting, when Elon was yelling at Rubio for not firing enough people, Rubio stated that they had already had 1500 people retire. Musk said that he needed to FIRE people-- not just work with more regular/voluntary attrition. Rubio sarcastically asked if he should stop the retirements so that he could fire them instead. And then at least in a few RIF-related leaks, people have reported that retirement-based attrition, people who took the Fork, and so on will NOT be counted towards the total percentage to be fired.

They are obviously doing a great job getting people to leave because of the toxic environment but I do think they want to make a huge spectacle of it. And for that reason, I don't think anyone is safe.

I agree this is the message they are sending. I do however think most financial regulators will be crippled by the voluntary losses. If the SEC loses 1000 people, it will be felt in exams and in those areas that review filings (CF, IM and TM with the SRO filings). The agency, including Atkins, won’t want to lose more. And I think the whole point of Rubio fighting was to make the point that it has to be left to the agencies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m sure that people on this board know the details.

My GUESS: the agency is targeting a specific headcount (probably 2019 levels). They probably have 8-12 months to get there, one way or another.

Note that project 2025 says nothing about big cuts to the agency.

Project 2025 also didn't dismantle USAID, yet here we are.

You obviously didn’t read it. They didn’t use the word “dismantle” but might as well have. In contrast, the small chapter on the SEC is boring and suggests minor reforms.

Keep telling yourself that. You can use semantics all you want, but there is no guidebook anymore. The SEC CBA was also supposedly “strong” 🙄

Periodic reminder that credit for the strong CBA must go to the rockstar union negotiator.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At another FIRREA. I don't know but I really think they want to fire people, across government, and in a substantial amount from every agency. In the blow-up cabinet meeting, when Elon was yelling at Rubio for not firing enough people, Rubio stated that they had already had 1500 people retire. Musk said that he needed to FIRE people-- not just work with more regular/voluntary attrition. Rubio sarcastically asked if he should stop the retirements so that he could fire them instead. And then at least in a few RIF-related leaks, people have reported that retirement-based attrition, people who took the Fork, and so on will NOT be counted towards the total percentage to be fired.

They are obviously doing a great job getting people to leave because of the toxic environment but I do think they want to make a huge spectacle of it. And for that reason, I don't think anyone is safe.

I agree this is the message they are sending. I do however think most financial regulators will be crippled by the voluntary losses. If the SEC loses 1000 people, it will be felt in exams and in those areas that review filings (CF, IM and TM with the SRO filings). The agency, including Atkins, won’t want to lose more. And I think the whole point of Rubio fighting was to make the point that it has to be left to the agencies.

Agree with you there. It's all madness. There's starting to be some pushback. I would expect some sort of broad, arbitrary percentage to cut anywhere though. Maybe not 50%, maybe closer to 10%. It won't make any sense but any agency head will feel the need to do something to play along. It's going to be up to each agency head in how much they want to push back. I do think Musk is being more careful with the SEC than anticipated, which is interesting.

[Anonymous]

USAID was investigating potential Starlink misconduct on the contracts USAID paid for to provide communications in Ukraine that seemed to cut off at curious times.
https://oig.usaid.gov/node/6814
PROJECT ANNOUNCEMENT: Inspection of USAID's Oversight of Starlink Terminals Provided to the Government of Ukraine

CPFB's dismantling came right as Musk wants to launch a Chinese style Digital Wallet run through X which would have required their approval.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2025-02-10/doge-backed-halt-at-cfpb-comes-amid-musk-s-plans-for-x-digital-wallet

SEC has had numerous enforcement actions with Elon Musk. I don't think SEC will be gutted the same way CPFB and USAID have been, but I predict life will be unpleasant for most employees there for the next few years and that many of the enforcement functions will be gutted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m sure that people on this board know the details.

My GUESS: the agency is targeting a specific headcount (probably 2019 levels). They probably have 8-12 months to get there, one way or another.

Note that project 2025 says nothing about big cuts to the agency.

Project 2025 also didn't dismantle USAID, yet here we are.

You obviously didn’t read it. They didn’t use the word “dismantle” but might as well have. In contrast, the small chapter on the SEC is boring and suggests minor reforms.

Keep telling yourself that. You can use semantics all you want, but there is no guidebook anymore. The SEC CBA was also supposedly “strong” 🙄

Yeah, bc Atkins wants to leave his current private sector job, divest stock, etc, just to preside over dismantling the agency that he worked at for 6 years (contrary to the project 2025 doc that he helped write). Sounds fun for him.

He’s not Linda McMahon.

But keep telling yourself that USAID is the same as the SEC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m sure that people on this board know the details.

My GUESS: the agency is targeting a specific headcount (probably 2019 levels). They probably have 8-12 months to get there, one way or another.

Note that project 2025 says nothing about big cuts to the agency.

Project 2025 also didn't dismantle USAID, yet here we are.

You obviously didn’t read it. They didn’t use the word “dismantle” but might as well have. In contrast, the small chapter on the SEC is boring and suggests minor reforms.

Keep telling yourself that. You can use semantics all you want, but there is no guidebook anymore. The SEC CBA was also supposedly “strong” 🙄

Periodic reminder that credit for the strong CBA must go to the rockstar union negotiator.

+1 LOL

[Anonymous]

Interesting how SEC attorneys were explicitly exempted from the probation list. And there have been zero involuntary terminations thus far.

But they want to “dismantle” it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At another FIRREA. I don't know but I really think they want to fire people, across government, and in a substantial amount from every agency. In the blow-up cabinet meeting, when Elon was yelling at Rubio for not firing enough people, Rubio stated that they had already had 1500 people retire. Musk said that he needed to FIRE people-- not just work with more regular/voluntary attrition. Rubio sarcastically asked if he should stop the retirements so that he could fire them instead. And then at least in a few RIF-related leaks, people have reported that retirement-based attrition, people who took the Fork, and so on will NOT be counted towards the total percentage to be fired.

They are obviously doing a great job getting people to leave because of the toxic environment but I do think they want to make a huge spectacle of it. And for that reason, I don't think anyone is safe.

It’s paranoia. Anyone who voluntarily leaves didn’t mind going, and therefore were never a threat in the first place. People who stay, despite tempting offers of generous administrative leave and early retirement, are suspect of wanting to embed themselves for nefarious purposes. It’s the way they think and it’s evident in every action they do.

[Anonymous]

The big focus per P2025 is on eliminating layers of management. For example: where regional staff report to their AD, who reports to a Regional Associate Director, who reports to a Regional Director, who reports to HQ management, who reports to the chair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the sec should make Assistant Directors and the Chief of the office do case work as the non-Assitant Directors do all the work and heavy lifting

The managers in my group just set up meetings and sit on documents for months. They do none of the drafting or even reviewing. Never get comments from them on anything.

agree and the chief only shows up once a week in the office. the assistant directors ask a non lawyer to review any documents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The big focus per P2025 is on eliminating layers of management. For example: where regional staff report to their AD, who reports to a Regional Associate Director, who reports to a Regional Director, who reports to HQ management, who reports to the chair.

But we are talking SK15 to 17 to SO ... so wouldn't the right "layer" have been the RAD?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The big focus per P2025 is on eliminating layers of management. For example: where regional staff report to their AD, who reports to a Regional Associate Director, who reports to a Regional Director, who reports to HQ management, who reports to the chair.

But we are talking SK15 to 17 to SO ... so wouldn't the right "layer" have been the RAD?

Also, were these individuals truly "fired"//RIF'd? Or were the roles terminated? There's a difference.