Realignment for SEC

[Anonymous]

[google]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually think they will get takers. Associates will be voluntold to do it. Firms will brag to clients about their ability to influence the rules. I also disagree that being named in a rule release isn't a bit of a feather in one's cap. The CF director, for example, still talks about how he helped re-write Reg M-A.

Top 5 dumbest post of 2026. First, no associate detailee would or could significantly “influence” anything. Second, even if they did, no law firm would “brag” about it. Third, even if they did brag about it, no client would care. Fourth, any associate who a firm could so easily lose for 120 days has no future at the firm in any event (associates on partner track are indispensable to their cases/deals).

DP. Many regulatory lawyers, those mostly likely to be interested/of value in a rule writing stint aren’t doing cases/deals, and and being heavily invoked in a rewrite of the rules of that govern their industry might be worth stepping away from.

Firms wouldn’t brag about it publicly, but they undoubtedly would in pitches and the like and, if the experience was related to the client’s needs, the clients would care. As for the ability to influence something, no they probably aren’t going to be making high level policy decisions, but junior-ish people can play big roles even in competent administrations, and the value is less in being able to direct the policy than being intimately familiar with the ins and outs of the policy, its formation, and the other career people who work on the issues at the agency.

[Anonymous]

Do they plan to sequester these young guns on the tenth floor like the crypto task force have them on a wholly contained rulemaking team?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do they plan to sequester these young guns on the tenth floor like the crypto task force have them on a wholly contained rulemaking team?

Like that crypto task force has shown anything? What have they done in the last year? No one knows. Nothing to show for it.

The same will be for these Schedule Gs. A lot of fanfare with nothing to show for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This chairman has a dilemma on his hands: he mostly hates staff. He thinks we are all overpaid. He hates telework thinking (wrongly) that RTO leads to “collaboration” or whatever other nonsense - I am sure that so many people who come in at 6am and leave by 2:30 are so effective and “collaborative,” especially with their colleagues on the West Coast.
PA is delusional. Who is going to write all those rules? Adopting releases? FAQs? He has been in the building for almost a year now and hasn’t done anything but give speeches and produce a Christmas YouTube video.
If we do get any telework back, it’s because the few sane people around him convince him that this is the only thing that can boost the morale. Can’t wait for the next election.

He’s hiring young guns from law firms to come in for 120 to do the rulemaking . . . He doesn’t need a single SEC employee. Or so he thinks.

lol! Young guns? The ones whose only experience is doc review?

The young guns are the only ones he can hire because it it is obvious no one competent senior wants to work for this chairman: a judge as an ENF director? A washed cyber reg affairs guy as the Exams director? A Chief Economist with no regulatory experience it took a year to hire? No permanent GC? Looks like this chairman is struggling with getting people to work for him.

You obviously don’t read press releases or know the SEC. There is no chief economist anymore. And the new Director of DERA had been at the agency for 6 years. Because you were at the SEC like a decade ago, your knowledge is stale and you really don’t have a clue about how things have evolved.

Well, PP is right about no GC and I don’t recall a press release about the lack of a gc.

What? They announced that the prior GC left. No new hire has been announced. Are they supposed to announce all the vacant positions monthly or something?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This chairman has a dilemma on his hands: he mostly hates staff. He thinks we are all overpaid. He hates telework thinking (wrongly) that RTO leads to “collaboration” or whatever other nonsense - I am sure that so many people who come in at 6am and leave by 2:30 are so effective and “collaborative,” especially with their colleagues on the West Coast.
PA is delusional. Who is going to write all those rules? Adopting releases? FAQs? He has been in the building for almost a year now and hasn’t done anything but give speeches and produce a Christmas YouTube video.
If we do get any telework back, it’s because the few sane people around him convince him that this is the only thing that can boost the morale. Can’t wait for the next election.

He’s hiring young guns from law firms to come in for 120 to do the rulemaking . . . He doesn’t need a single SEC employee. Or so he thinks.

lol! Young guns? The ones whose only experience is doc review?

The young guns are the only ones he can hire because it it is obvious no one competent senior wants to work for this chairman: a judge as an ENF director? A washed cyber reg affairs guy as the Exams director? A Chief Economist with no regulatory experience it took a year to hire? No permanent GC? Looks like this chairman is struggling with getting people to work for him.

You obviously don’t read press releases or know the SEC. There is no chief economist anymore. And the new Director of DERA had been at the agency for 6 years. Because you were at the SEC like a decade ago, your knowledge is stale and you really don’t have a clue about how things have evolved.

Well, PP is right about no GC and I don’t recall a press release about the lack of a gc.

What? They announced that the prior GC left. No new hire has been announced. Are they supposed to announce all the vacant positions monthly or something?

No, someone was saying the PP wasn’t at the SEC because he got his info from PRs. But that poster said we don’t have a GC, which is right, meaning he knew at least some info that didn’t come from PRs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do they plan to sequester these young guns on the tenth floor like the crypto task force have them on a wholly contained rulemaking team?

Like that crypto task force has shown anything? What have they done in the last year? No one knows. Nothing to show for it.

The same will be for these Schedule Gs. A lot of fanfare with nothing to show for it.

Right. Or the AI “task force.” Phantom arrangements for people without roles to keep their jobs with no accountability.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This chairman has a dilemma on his hands: he mostly hates staff. He thinks we are all overpaid. He hates telework thinking (wrongly) that RTO leads to “collaboration” or whatever other nonsense - I am sure that so many people who come in at 6am and leave by 2:30 are so effective and “collaborative,” especially with their colleagues on the West Coast.
PA is delusional. Who is going to write all those rules? Adopting releases? FAQs? He has been in the building for almost a year now and hasn’t done anything but give speeches and produce a Christmas YouTube video.
If we do get any telework back, it’s because the few sane people around him convince him that this is the only thing that can boost the morale. Can’t wait for the next election.

He’s hiring young guns from law firms to come in for 120 to do the rulemaking . . . He doesn’t need a single SEC employee. Or so he thinks.

lol! Young guns? The ones whose only experience is doc review?

The young guns are the only ones he can hire because it it is obvious no one competent senior wants to work for this chairman: a judge as an ENF director? A washed cyber reg affairs guy as the Exams director? A Chief Economist with no regulatory experience it took a year to hire? No permanent GC? Looks like this chairman is struggling with getting people to work for him.

You obviously don’t read press releases or know the SEC. There is no chief economist anymore. And the new Director of DERA had been at the agency for 6 years. Because you were at the SEC like a decade ago, your knowledge is stale and you really don’t have a clue about how things have evolved.

Well, PP is right about no GC and I don’t recall a press release about the lack of a gc.

What? They announced that the prior GC left. No new hire has been announced. Are they supposed to announce all the vacant positions monthly or something?

No, someone was saying the PP wasn’t at the SEC because he got his info from PRs. But that poster said we don’t have a GC, which is right, meaning he knew at least some info that didn’t come from PRs.

Not sure about that. Everything in the post, including the fact that we do not have a new GC can be gleaned from publicly available press releases.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[google]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually think they will get takers. Associates will be voluntold to do it. Firms will brag to clients about their ability to influence the rules. I also disagree that being named in a rule release isn't a bit of a feather in one's cap. The CF director, for example, still talks about how he helped re-write Reg M-A.

Top 5 dumbest post of 2026. First, no associate detailee would or could significantly “influence” anything. Second, even if they did, no law firm would “brag” about it. Third, even if they did brag about it, no client would care. Fourth, any associate who a firm could so easily lose for 120 days has no future at the firm in any event (associates on partner track are indispensable to their cases/deals).

DP. Many regulatory lawyers, those mostly likely to be interested/of value in a rule writing stint aren’t doing cases/deals, and and being heavily invoked in a rewrite of the rules of that govern their industry might be worth stepping away from.

Firms wouldn’t brag about it publicly, but they undoubtedly would in pitches and the like and, if the experience was related to the client’s needs, the clients would care. As for the ability to influence something, no they probably aren’t going to be making high level policy decisions, but junior-ish people can play big roles even in competent administrations, and the value is less in being able to direct the policy than being intimately familiar with the ins and outs of the policy, its formation, and the other career people who work on the issues at the agency.

A jr attorney there for 4 months is not going to gain any meaningful sense of the ins and outs of the rule they are working on a tiny piece of much less “intimately familiar.” At most they will be drafting the PRA section lol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[google]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually think they will get takers. Associates will be voluntold to do it. Firms will brag to clients about their ability to influence the rules. I also disagree that being named in a rule release isn't a bit of a feather in one's cap. The CF director, for example, still talks about how he helped re-write Reg M-A.

Top 5 dumbest post of 2026. First, no associate detailee would or could significantly “influence” anything. Second, even if they did, no law firm would “brag” about it. Third, even if they did brag about it, no client would care. Fourth, any associate who a firm could so easily lose for 120 days has no future at the firm in any event (associates on partner track are indispensable to their cases/deals).

DP. Many regulatory lawyers, those mostly likely to be interested/of value in a rule writing stint aren’t doing cases/deals, and and being heavily invoked in a rewrite of the rules of that govern their industry might be worth stepping away from.

Firms wouldn’t brag about it publicly, but they undoubtedly would in pitches and the like and, if the experience was related to the client’s needs, the clients would care. As for the ability to influence something, no they probably aren’t going to be making high level policy decisions, but junior-ish people can play big roles even in competent administrations, and the value is less in being able to direct the policy than being intimately familiar with the ins and outs of the policy, its formation, and the other career people who work on the issues at the agency.

A jr attorney there for 4 months is not going to gain any meaningful sense of the ins and outs of the rule they are working on a tiny piece of much less “intimately familiar.” At most they will be drafting the PRA section lol.

Exactly. The rulemaking process here is complicated with multiple levels of review within each division participating in the process, as well as OGC. 4 months is certainly not enough time to do that. Moreover, we have lot some good rule writers. I doubt those who are left will be inclined to train the noobs.

[Anonymous]

I’m sure the powers that be think these folks won’t need training. And with no Dem and a weak GC they can get rules through quickly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m sure the powers that be think these folks won’t need training. And with no Dem and a weak GC they can get rules through quickly.

They will be able to get them through quickly. Then they will loose in court when sued.

[Anonymous]

I’m hearing many many unqualified people are getting elevated into seniority roles to fill the many many vacancies… what a shame. There’s no re-org that will fix these issues

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m hearing many many unqualified people are getting elevated into seniority roles to fill the many many vacancies… what a shame. There’s no re-org that will fix these issues

You are hearing this? What from the whackos who were protesting outside the building Monday?

Such a general statement is pretty devoid of meaning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m hearing many many unqualified people are getting elevated into seniority roles to fill the many many vacancies… what a shame. There’s no re-org that will fix these issues

The better question is, why on earth would anyone want those senior roles??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m hearing many many unqualified people are getting elevated into seniority roles to fill the many many vacancies… what a shame. There’s no re-org that will fix these issues

The better question is, why on earth would anyone want those senior roles??

They pay better than junior roles. Plus easier to get a private sector job if you’re in a senior role.