Reply to SEC - why not even a peep from leadership?

Forum Index » Jobs and Careers

Reply to "SEC - why not even a peep from leadership?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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. [/quote]

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. [/quote]

Your buttholiness is embarrassing.

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

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. [/quote]

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
[/quote]

Nope[/quote]

If they are public or looking to go public , actually yes.  [/quote]

That’s not how this works. That’s not how any of this works![/quote]

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

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? 
[/quote]

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.[/quote]

+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) [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics