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]

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 [i]de minimis[/i].  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.  [/quote]

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.[/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