Realignment for SEC

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You're the same person who keeps asking this. Why do you want to work there? You know the work is being scaled back. This means there's not enough work to go around. So why would they piss away money hiring you?

Maybe because they don’t have a job right now and want one? If this Chairman doesn’t want people to do any work, then staff will just sit around, after commuting a couple of hours, and still get paid.

Let’s hear more speeches and YouTube videos!

Im an enforcement attorney at one of the banking agencies looking to jump ship to sec. Morale is low here right now.

I mean if you're wanting to be at the SEC long term and you think this is an easy time to get in - when/if they hire - fine but certainly you can't think SEC morale is good?? It won't be for several years - if you want to get in and ride it out, your choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You're the same person who keeps asking this. Why do you want to work there? You know the work is being scaled back. This means there's not enough work to go around. So why would they piss away money hiring you?

Maybe because they don’t have a job right now and want one? If this Chairman doesn’t want people to do any work, then staff will just sit around, after commuting a couple of hours, and still get paid.

Let’s hear more speeches and YouTube videos!

Im an enforcement attorney at one of the banking agencies looking to jump ship to sec. Morale is low here right now.

I mean if you're wanting to be at the SEC long term and you think this is an easy time to get in - when/if they hire - fine but certainly you can't think SEC morale is good?? It won't be for several years - if you want to get in and ride it out, your choice.

Its all relative man.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You're the same person who keeps asking this. Why do you want to work there? You know the work is being scaled back. This means there's not enough work to go around. So why would they piss away money hiring you?

Maybe because they don’t have a job right now and want one? If this Chairman doesn’t want people to do any work, then staff will just sit around, after commuting a couple of hours, and still get paid.

Let’s hear more speeches and YouTube videos!

Im an enforcement attorney at one of the banking agencies looking to jump ship to sec. Morale is low here right now.

CFPB experience is not going to be competitive for SEC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You're the same person who keeps asking this. Why do you want to work there? You know the work is being scaled back. This means there's not enough work to go around. So why would they piss away money hiring you?

Maybe because they don’t have a job right now and want one? If this Chairman doesn’t want people to do any work, then staff will just sit around, after commuting a couple of hours, and still get paid.

Let’s hear more speeches and YouTube videos!

Im an enforcement attorney at one of the banking agencies looking to jump ship to sec. Morale is low here right now.

CFPB experience is not going to be competitive for SEC.

Cfpb isnt a banking agency.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The people at the SEC are such whiny complainers. We could do a lot worse than Atkins. It seems clear some people are just complaining about things they don’t know anything about. Atkins cares about enforcement, so don’t know where that came from. I can’t speak for EXAMS but Judge Ryan is wicked smart and takes no crap. A lack of securities law background might be a problem for some but not her.

I agree about the telework though. We have many people just hanging on by a thread.

Wow, someone drank the kool-aid. I don't care how much sweet-talking they do and how sharp they come across, having a background in securities law, or at the very least some relevant industry experience should be a requirement for the heads of Exams and Enforcement. Would Google or OpenAI employ Chief Counsels without experience in a big tech company or someone with a mechanical engineering background for their Head of Engineering roles?

The fact that the regulator for the world's largest and most complex financial markets has people in these positions without a securities law background is a signal to industry how seriously we are taking it. Also, you can just look at the number of Enforcement cases dropped in the crypto space and judge for yourself if the SEC is taking Enforcement seriously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The people at the SEC are such whiny complainers. We could do a lot worse than Atkins. It seems clear some people are just complaining about things they don’t know anything about. Atkins cares about enforcement, so don’t know where that came from. I can’t speak for EXAMS but Judge Ryan is wicked smart and takes no crap. A lack of securities law background might be a problem for some but not her.

I agree about the telework though. We have many people just hanging on by a thread.

Wow, someone drank the kool-aid. I don't care how much sweet-talking they do and how sharp they come across, having a background in securities law, or at the very least some relevant industry experience should be a requirement for the heads of Exams and Enforcement. Would Google or OpenAI employ Chief Counsels without experience in a big tech company or someone with a mechanical engineering background for their Head of Engineering roles?

The fact that the regulator for the world's largest and most complex financial markets has people in these positions without a securities law background is a signal to industry how seriously we are taking it. Also, you can just look at the number of Enforcement cases dropped in the crypto space and judge for yourself if the SEC is taking Enforcement seriously.

Gurbir did not know shit about securities law either.

[Anonymous]

Gurbir did not know shit about securities law either.

But he had decency to leave after the elections. The exams guy is still there ruining that division.

But overall this chairman has not been been impressive with his staff selections. Other than the IM Director.

[Anonymous]

When is the Rockstar union bringing back telework? Are people STILL paying union dues? Why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The people at the SEC are such whiny complainers. We could do a lot worse than Atkins. It seems clear some people are just complaining about things they don’t know anything about. Atkins cares about enforcement, so don’t know where that came from. I can’t speak for EXAMS but Judge Ryan is wicked smart and takes no crap. A lack of securities law background might be a problem for some but not her.

I agree about the telework though. We have many people just hanging on by a thread.

Wow, someone drank the kool-aid. I don't care how much sweet-talking they do and how sharp they come across, having a background in securities law, or at the very least some relevant industry experience should be a requirement for the heads of Exams and Enforcement. Would Google or OpenAI employ Chief Counsels without experience in a big tech company or someone with a mechanical engineering background for their Head of Engineering roles?

The fact that the regulator for the world's largest and most complex financial markets has people in these positions without a securities law background is a signal to industry how seriously we are taking it. Also, you can just look at the number of Enforcement cases dropped in the crypto space and judge for yourself if the SEC is taking Enforcement seriously.

These are false equivalencies. A lawyer has a baseline level knowledge of law, process, etc. vs. someone without mechanical engineering doesn’t have even a baseline level of knowledge. One is Fuji vs. gala apples and the other is kiwis and oranges.

And yes, IT companies hire general/chief counsels who don’t have tech experience.

One might argue that the crypto cases were out of control and should not have been brought in the first place, or if pursued, pursued differently. That doesn’t mean enforcement isn’t now valued or is not going to be working. It’s not black and white.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This Chairman is extremely indecisive. The rumors of realignment is just that - rumors. The point to all this madness is to actually not do any meaningful work. There is still no GC. A judge with no securities law background as its ENF director. An acting director in Exams with no securities law background either. The morale is low. More people have been checking out.

Ok let's not malign Paul here, he is doing a lot of very important work like making Merry Christmas videos on behalf of the SEC.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFWxvAePwpY

Maybe I’m the only one here, but I appreciated his statements of appreciation and support of the staff. After so much public bashing by Elon and others, it’s nice to have a leader express something positive. Maybe my bar has been lowered too far but that was my thought after watching this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This Chairman is extremely indecisive. The rumors of realignment is just that - rumors. The point to all this madness is to actually not do any meaningful work. There is still no GC. A judge with no securities law background as its ENF director. An acting director in Exams with no securities law background either. The morale is low. More people have been checking out.

Ok let's not malign Paul here, he is doing a lot of very important work like making Merry Christmas videos on behalf of the SEC.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFWxvAePwpY

Maybe I’m the only one here, but I appreciated his statements of appreciation and support of the staff. After so much public bashing by Elon and others, it’s nice to have a leader express something positive. Maybe my bar has been lowered too far but that was my thought after watching this.

The best way to show appreciation is to honor the CBA and not breach it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This Chairman is extremely indecisive. The rumors of realignment is just that - rumors. The point to all this madness is to actually not do any meaningful work. There is still no GC. A judge with no securities law background as its ENF director. An acting director in Exams with no securities law background either. The morale is low. More people have been checking out.

Ok let's not malign Paul here, he is doing a lot of very important work like making Merry Christmas videos on behalf of the SEC.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFWxvAePwpY

Maybe I’m the only one here, but I appreciated his statements of appreciation and support of the staff. After so much public bashing by Elon and others, it’s nice to have a leader express something positive. Maybe my bar has been lowered too far but that was my thought after watching this.

If he supported the staff at all, he’d sign off on the minimal telework proposal that has been proposed and is awaiting his approval (or more likely, denial).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This Chairman is extremely indecisive. The rumors of realignment is just that - rumors. The point to all this madness is to actually not do any meaningful work. There is still no GC. A judge with no securities law background as its ENF director. An acting director in Exams with no securities law background either. The morale is low. More people have been checking out.

Ok let's not malign Paul here, he is doing a lot of very important work like making Merry Christmas videos on behalf of the SEC.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFWxvAePwpY

Maybe I’m the only one here, but I appreciated his statements of appreciation and support of the staff. After so much public bashing by Elon and others, it’s nice to have a leader express something positive. Maybe my bar has been lowered too far but that was my thought after watching this.

If he supported the staff at all, he’d sign off on the minimal telework proposal that has been proposed and is awaiting his approval (or more likely, denial).

I think the likelihood of that happening is even lower now with what OPM just put out re telework.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This Chairman is extremely indecisive. The rumors of realignment is just that - rumors. The point to all this madness is to actually not do any meaningful work. There is still no GC. A judge with no securities law background as its ENF director. An acting director in Exams with no securities law background either. The morale is low. More people have been checking out.

Ok let's not malign Paul here, he is doing a lot of very important work like making Merry Christmas videos on behalf of the SEC.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFWxvAePwpY

Maybe I’m the only one here, but I appreciated his statements of appreciation and support of the staff. After so much public bashing by Elon and others, it’s nice to have a leader express something positive. Maybe my bar has been lowered too far but that was my thought after watching this.

If he supported the staff at all, he’d sign off on the minimal telework proposal that has been proposed and is awaiting his approval (or more likely, denial).

I think the likelihood of that happening is even lower now with what OPM just put out re telework.

I agree- I can't see where regular telework will be anywhere in our future.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The people at the SEC are such whiny complainers. We could do a lot worse than Atkins. It seems clear some people are just complaining about things they don’t know anything about. Atkins cares about enforcement, so don’t know where that came from. I can’t speak for EXAMS but Judge Ryan is wicked smart and takes no crap. A lack of securities law background might be a problem for some but not her.

I agree about the telework though. We have many people just hanging on by a thread.

Wow, someone drank the kool-aid. I don't care how much sweet-talking they do and how sharp they come across, having a background in securities law, or at the very least some relevant industry experience should be a requirement for the heads of Exams and Enforcement. Would Google or OpenAI employ Chief Counsels without experience in a big tech company or someone with a mechanical engineering background for their Head of Engineering roles?

The fact that the regulator for the world's largest and most complex financial markets has people in these positions without a securities law background is a signal to industry how seriously we are taking it. Also, you can just look at the number of Enforcement cases dropped in the crypto space and judge for yourself if the SEC is taking Enforcement seriously.

Yeah, that's not the SEC. The derivatives markets are orders of magnitude larger and more complex. Nice try though.