SEC - why not even a peep from leadership?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:About RIFs, potential restructuring, how many are leaving, etc? It’s bizarre. Every other Fed I know has leadership that at least gave them a courtesy of an update on these things.

Maybe ours just doesn’t care.

Because no news is good news under the circumstances; because it's understood it'd be unfavorable to put MU on the spot and make him decide; because PA will be much worse than MU so a caretaker administration is as good as it gets

Absolutely agree

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the original question - thy aren’t saying anything because they don’t know what is going to happen. The orders for cuts are coming from Trump and Musk then handled by the agency head. They have nothing to do with the budget. They’re retaliatory against the perceived deep state, government overreach, and based on pure hatred so there really is no predicting.

Yeah, why on earth would some guy in his 60s who’s already worth $300 million get involved with such a charade? Very weird. Really? Doesn’t he have anything else better to do than to implement orders from opm? A very sad way to live out your retirement years…

He probably doesn't care about the HR policy stuff. He cares about the substantive legal policy. As to why he's doing it, probably a chance to enacted policies that will benefit him or his firm and in some way enable him to accrue even more wealth. Basically the same reason Musk is doing it.

[Anonymous]

WTF were probationary lawyers excluded from termination back in Feb??? If they intend to impose deep cuts??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the original question - thy aren’t saying anything because they don’t know what is going to happen. The orders for cuts are coming from Trump and Musk then handled by the agency head. They have nothing to do with the budget. They’re retaliatory against the perceived deep state, government overreach, and based on pure hatred so there really is no predicting.

Yeah, why on earth would some guy in his 60s who’s already worth $300 million get involved with such a charade? Very weird. Really? Doesn’t he have anything else better to do than to implement orders from opm? A very sad way to live out your retirement years…

He probably doesn't care about the HR policy stuff. He cares about the substantive legal policy. As to why he's doing it, probably a chance to enacted policies that will benefit him or his firm and in some way enable him to accrue even more wealth. Basically the same reason Musk is doing it.

Well good luck implementing any of that “substance” when staff is gutted, demoralized, and barely working. It takes a lot of hardworking people to issue new rules, reverse old ones, implement reorganizations, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the original question - thy aren’t saying anything because they don’t know what is going to happen. The orders for cuts are coming from Trump and Musk then handled by the agency head. They have nothing to do with the budget. They’re retaliatory against the perceived deep state, government overreach, and based on pure hatred so there really is no predicting.

Yeah, why on earth would some guy in his 60s who’s already worth $300 million get involved with such a charade? Very weird. Really? Doesn’t he have anything else better to do than to implement orders from opm? A very sad way to live out your retirement years…

He probably doesn't care about the HR policy stuff. He cares about the substantive legal policy. As to why he's doing it, probably a chance to enacted policies that will benefit him or his firm and in some way enable him to accrue even more wealth. Basically the same reason Musk is doing it.

Well good luck implementing any of that “substance” when staff is gutted, demoralized, and barely working. It takes a lot of hardworking people to issue new rules, reverse old ones, implement reorganizations, etc.

You're right but don't most of the people that work directly with him (i.e. counsels to the commissioner) basically go in 5 days a week anyways? I know someone on the crypto task force and they are already back 5 days a week. I dont think they are NBU.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
He probably doesn't care about the HR policy stuff. He cares about the substantive legal policy. As to why he's doing it, probably a chance to enacted policies that will benefit him or his firm and in some way enable him to accrue even more wealth. Basically the same reason Musk is doing it.

Critical to distinguish between preferred ideological direction/agenda, any idiosyncratic substantive policy views, and personal ambition.


Mary Jo: generic Dem, tough as nails enforcement, returning to private practice

Jay: generic soft touch de-regulation, straightening out integration and private placements and exempt offerings, SecTreas

Gary: appeasing the groups, hates crypto, SecTreas

PA will likely be focused on settling scores, letting DOGE have its way, and helping out his crypto friends.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
He probably doesn't care about the HR policy stuff. He cares about the substantive legal policy. As to why he's doing it, probably a chance to enacted policies that will benefit him or his firm and in some way enable him to accrue even more wealth. Basically the same reason Musk is doing it.

Critical to distinguish between preferred ideological direction/agenda, any idiosyncratic substantive policy views, and personal ambition.


Mary Jo: generic Dem, tough as nails enforcement, returning to private practice

Jay: generic soft touch de-regulation, straightening out integration and private placements and exempt offerings, SecTreas

Gary: appeasing the groups, hates crypto, SecTreas

PA will likely be focused on settling scores, letting DOGE have its way, and helping out his crypto friends.

What scores does he have to settle? That he only made $100 million after leaving in 2008 instead of $106?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:WTF were probationary lawyers excluded from termination back in Feb??? If they intend to impose deep cuts??

[/img]https://media1.tenor.com/m/F8SzDwIQ4JAAAAAd/nobody-knows-snl.gif[img]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:WTF were probationary lawyers excluded from termination back in Feb??? If they intend to impose deep cuts??

Who says they're imposing deep cuts? Or that cutting probationaries in Feb would in an any way affect cuts in May?

You have to stop making up rational arguments for any of this. The number of probationaries, VERA takers, etc. has no bearing on anything else that may or may not happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:About RIFs, potential restructuring, how many are leaving, etc? It’s bizarre. Every other Fed I know has leadership that at least gave them a courtesy of an update on these things.

Maybe ours just doesn’t care.

they are risk averse lawyers. with no morals. what do you expect?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:WTF were probationary lawyers excluded from termination back in Feb??? If they intend to impose deep cuts??

Where is this deep cut info coming from? Last I heard they were thinking restructuring but no RIFs was doable bc a large # of people are out the door due to VERA. Has that changed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just seems like a bizarre random thing to suddenly prioritize. Won’t make a dent in the deficit. How about we focus on things that actually move the needle?

But maybe that’s the point. When people can’t or don’t want to do the hard stuff, people tend to screw around with the inconsequential, so they at least feel like they’re doing something.

None of this is about the deficit, least of all at the SEC which is budget neutral, and yes a lot of it is about optics. Honestly all these recent threads are embarrassing in their lack of critical thinking.

Your buttholiness is embarrassing.

Why is it that people of mediocre intelligence always think they are the smartest people in the room?

You don't know what you are talking about and have no self-reflection. The SEC is entirely funding by fees and it doesn’t impact the federal budget. Cutting people at the SEC doesn’t save taxpayers money and it will cost them money when securities fraud becomes rampant due to lack of enforcement.

DP. Do those fees come out of the pockets of corporations that support the administration? In so, seems like a solid path of breadcrumbs to follow to why they want the cuts

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just seems like a bizarre random thing to suddenly prioritize. Won’t make a dent in the deficit. How about we focus on things that actually move the needle?

But maybe that’s the point. When people can’t or don’t want to do the hard stuff, people tend to screw around with the inconsequential, so they at least feel like they’re doing something.

None of this is about the deficit, least of all at the SEC which is budget neutral, and yes a lot of it is about optics. Honestly all these recent threads are embarrassing in their lack of critical thinking.

Your buttholiness is embarrassing.

Why is it that people of mediocre intelligence always think they are the smartest people in the room?

You don't know what you are talking about and have no self-reflection. The SEC is entirely funding by fees and it doesn’t impact the federal budget. Cutting people at the SEC doesn’t save taxpayers money and it will cost them money when securities fraud becomes rampant due to lack of enforcement.

DP. Do those fees come out of the pockets of corporations that support the administration? In so, seems like a solid path of breadcrumbs to follow to why they want the cuts

Nope

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just seems like a bizarre random thing to suddenly prioritize. Won’t make a dent in the deficit. How about we focus on things that actually move the needle?

But maybe that’s the point. When people can’t or don’t want to do the hard stuff, people tend to screw around with the inconsequential, so they at least feel like they’re doing something.

None of this is about the deficit, least of all at the SEC which is budget neutral, and yes a lot of it is about optics. Honestly all these recent threads are embarrassing in their lack of critical thinking.

Your buttholiness is embarrassing.

Why is it that people of mediocre intelligence always think they are the smartest people in the room?

You don't know what you are talking about and have no self-reflection. The SEC is entirely funding by fees and it doesn’t impact the federal budget. Cutting people at the SEC doesn’t save taxpayers money and it will cost them money when securities fraud becomes rampant due to lack of enforcement.

DP. Do those fees come out of the pockets of corporations that support the administration? In so, seems like a solid path of breadcrumbs to follow to why they want the cuts

Nope

If they are public or looking to go public , actually yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just seems like a bizarre random thing to suddenly prioritize. Won’t make a dent in the deficit. How about we focus on things that actually move the needle?

But maybe that’s the point. When people can’t or don’t want to do the hard stuff, people tend to screw around with the inconsequential, so they at least feel like they’re doing something.

None of this is about the deficit, least of all at the SEC which is budget neutral, and yes a lot of it is about optics. Honestly all these recent threads are embarrassing in their lack of critical thinking.

Your buttholiness is embarrassing.

Why is it that people of mediocre intelligence always think they are the smartest people in the room?

You don't know what you are talking about and have no self-reflection. The SEC is entirely funding by fees and it doesn’t impact the federal budget. Cutting people at the SEC doesn’t save taxpayers money and it will cost them money when securities fraud becomes rampant due to lack of enforcement.

DP. Do those fees come out of the pockets of corporations that support the administration? In so, seems like a solid path of breadcrumbs to follow to why they want the cuts

Nope

If they are public or looking to go public , actually yes.

That’s not how this works. That’s not how any of this works!