SEC - why not even a peep from leadership?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1 and why is that PP acting like it's a bad thing that probationary employees mostly survived in Feb? I know ppl in mgmt (career) who worked hard to make that case and preserve those jobs. Obviously nothing is guaranteed even if you make it thru one round though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!

Do you know how the SEC is funded? Doesn’t seem like you do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

Do you know how the SEC is funded? Doesn’t seem like you do.

Not the one you are arguing with, but I did ask the question and I really don't know. If SEC is supported by fees and cutting doesn't directly help the federal budget, then it seems like the incentives have to be elsewhere. Where else? I asked if the fees were from corporate allies of the administration as a possibility. Or, is it hate for regulation? Just spite from past rulings not in their favor? General desire to cut any govt function?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

Do you know how the SEC is funded? Doesn’t seem like you do.

Not the one you are arguing with, but I did ask the question and I really don't know. If SEC is supported by fees and cutting doesn't directly help the federal budget, then it seems like the incentives have to be elsewhere. Where else? I asked if the fees were from corporate allies of the administration as a possibility. Or, is it hate for regulation? Just spite from past rulings not in their favor? General desire to cut any govt function?

The SEC is funded by Congress through the regular appropriations process, but then their appropriation is fully offset by a combination of: (1) filing fees charged on certain registrations and public offerings of securities (currently $153.10 per $1,000,000); and (2) transaction fees charged on sales of stocks and options in the equity and OTC markets (currently $27.80 per $1,000,000).

The fees are so small as to essentially be de minimis. Obviously larger hedge funds and other institutional players are going to pay larger transaction fees, and large offerings of securities are going to incur larger fees, but we're talking peanuts. Combine this with the fact that most institutional players want some level of regulation to ensure stability and predictability, and you really have no justification for trying to gut the SEC based on a concern that "the fees are too high". Anyone who wants to cut the SEC wants to do so because of retribution (see, e.g., Musk), anger over the crypto cases (see, e.g., the Winklevii, Garlinghouse, and other random crypto bros), or a general dislike of regulation or general desire to cut the government, as you noted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

Do you know how the SEC is funded? Doesn’t seem like you do.

Not the one you are arguing with, but I did ask the question and I really don't know. If SEC is supported by fees and cutting doesn't directly help the federal budget, then it seems like the incentives have to be elsewhere. Where else? I asked if the fees were from corporate allies of the administration as a possibility. Or, is it hate for regulation? Just spite from past rulings not in their favor? General desire to cut any govt function?

one supposes that it's mostly the latter: general desire to cripple the federal government.

one thing to note is that while the SEC is fee-funded, it is ALSO appropriated. So it brings in more in fees than it costs, congress decides how much of the fees it wants to keep and how much it will allow the SEC to spend. The tricky bit there is that negatively impacting the function of the SEC could severely negatively impact the federal budget, not to mention destabilize the stock markets and affect everyone's wealth and assets. one supposes the bulk of the american billionaires want a window to buy up assets cheaply, but not all-out financial collapse. otoh putin and bonesaw probably would love to see financial collapse...

anyway we know that the federal budget is not the point, because they hit CFPB almost immediately. CFPB is fee-funded and not appropriated, so any money "saved" does not go to the federal budget at all. again, cutting CFPB likely makes the federal budget worse, because frequently non-appropriated agencies "buy" services from appropriated agencies. So killing these agencies somewhat non-intuitively causes even larger shortfalls in the budget... but gives free reign to the folks looking to scalp everyday consumers. congress is on board with this, killing the cap on overdraft fees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

Do you know how the SEC is funded? Doesn’t seem like you do.

Not the one you are arguing with, but I did ask the question and I really don't know. If SEC is supported by fees and cutting doesn't directly help the federal budget, then it seems like the incentives have to be elsewhere. Where else? I asked if the fees were from corporate allies of the administration as a possibility. Or, is it hate for regulation? Just spite from past rulings not in their favor? General desire to cut any govt function?

one supposes that it's mostly the latter: general desire to cripple the federal government.

one thing to note is that while the SEC is fee-funded, it is ALSO appropriated. So it brings in more in fees than it costs, congress decides how much of the fees it wants to keep and how much it will allow the SEC to spend. The tricky bit there is that negatively impacting the function of the SEC could severely negatively impact the federal budget, not to mention destabilize the stock markets and affect everyone's wealth and assets. one supposes the bulk of the american billionaires want a window to buy up assets cheaply, but not all-out financial collapse. otoh putin and bonesaw probably would love to see financial collapse...

anyway we know that the federal budget is not the point, because they hit CFPB almost immediately. CFPB is fee-funded and not appropriated, so any money "saved" does not go to the federal budget at all. again, cutting CFPB likely makes the federal budget worse, because frequently non-appropriated agencies "buy" services from appropriated agencies. So killing these agencies somewhat non-intuitively causes even larger shortfalls in the budget... but gives free reign to the folks looking to scalp everyday consumers. congress is on board with this, killing the cap on overdraft fees.

+1 to all of this. the budget is not the point. it's a fig leaf for attacking certain agencies (as pointed out here, many of which are NOT funded by congressional appropriations. so your tax dollars pay for $0).

that's why i don't think you can get too comfortable about "what makes sense" for SEC or other agencies. none of this makes sense. none is of this is to make things more efficient or better or save money. you have to think of it through the lens of their true goals, which for the sec is not so clear yet. (other than mostly backing off crypto)

[Anonymous]

The SEC is also relatively small so they may be taking out the bigger agencies and the ones they hate the most (Ed) before they come for us.

[Anonymous]

Project 2025 clearly lays out their plans for Dept of Education and cfpb. Eliminate.

And for SEC (which are relatively benign — merge some offices, reduce IT spending). Not dismantle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

Do you know how the SEC is funded? Doesn’t seem like you do.

Not the one you are arguing with, but I did ask the question and I really don't know. If SEC is supported by fees and cutting doesn't directly help the federal budget, then it seems like the incentives have to be elsewhere. Where else? I asked if the fees were from corporate allies of the administration as a possibility. Or, is it hate for regulation? Just spite from past rulings not in their favor? General desire to cut any govt function?

The SEC is funded by Congress through the regular appropriations process, but then their appropriation is fully offset by a combination of: (1) filing fees charged on certain registrations and public offerings of securities (currently $153.10 per $1,000,000); and (2) transaction fees charged on sales of stocks and options in the equity and OTC markets (currently $27.80 per $1,000,000).

The fees are so small as to essentially be de minimis. Obviously larger hedge funds and other institutional players are going to pay larger transaction fees, and large offerings of securities are going to incur larger fees, but we're talking peanuts. Combine this with the fact that most institutional players want some level of regulation to ensure stability and predictability, and you really have no justification for trying to gut the SEC based on a concern that "the fees are too high". Anyone who wants to cut the SEC wants to do so because of retribution (see, e.g., Musk), anger over the crypto cases (see, e.g., the Winklevii, Garlinghouse, and other random crypto bros), or a general dislike of regulation or general desire to cut the government, as you noted.

Thanks. That's where my mind was going but your post and the one below yours helped. I'm not SEC but a fed and trying to get a better picture of the different mix of motivations thinking towards how they might apply to us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Project 2025 clearly lays out their plans for Dept of Education and cfpb. Eliminate.

And for SEC (which are relatively benign — merge some offices, reduce IT spending). Not dismantle.

Read the chapter on USAID ... then come back and discuss whether you think P2025 stuck to its plan on that. Don't get too comfortable with P2025. The way to think about P2025 is that it's the floor ... and certainly NOT the ceiling.

[Anonymous]

Passing along scuttlebutt circulating amongst staff who should have reason to know:

-Badge swipes are priority for DOGE

-NTEU side letter no longer perceived as operative as to blanket use of swipe data to systematically reconcile against timecards

-This wasn't always the case, but staff has lost some of most vocal internal advocates. KJ is a yes man who'll go along. CAG and CC firmly management side and tough as nails.

-Ethics out-processing approx 700 employees, not counting contractors & interns

[Anonymous]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-04-02/kalshi-s-top-lawyer-quits-to-become-leader-of-doge-team-at-sec

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-04-02/kalshi-s-top-lawyer-quits-to-become-leader-of-doge-team-at-sec

So someone from a sports betting company? Great, just great.

[Anonymous]

Golden future for the 0.1% is here! I want in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-04-02/kalshi-s-top-lawyer-quits-to-become-leader-of-doge-team-at-sec

So someone from a sports betting company? Great, just great.

He does have CFTC experience, so it’s not completely out of left field.