147 people leaving sec as of last week

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The big focus per P2025 is on eliminating layers of management. For example: where regional staff report to their AD, who reports to a Regional Associate Director, who reports to a Regional Director, who reports to HQ management, who reports to the chair.

But we are talking SK15 to 17 to SO ... so wouldn't the right "layer" have been the RAD?

Any idea how this would work in practice? For example if they eliminate exam managers, do the managers get bumped into examiner roles, and then the lowest examiners on the totem pole get cut?

Anonymous wrote:Yes, there are that many people leaving! Amazing to see the names and numbers.

Yes, there will be RIFs but not right now.

Is it certain divisions more than others? Are people leaving with jobs or retiring/not working?

Yes, there are that many people leaving! Amazing to see the names and numbers.

Yes, there will be RIFs but not right now.

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why this country is unable to prevent Trump and Musk from using government positions to evade the consequences of their unlawful actions.

Because Republicans have won Congress and they're unwilling to do anything to stop them. And Trump has packed the Supreme Court with a majority being his cronies. So checks and balances have failed.

And I'm only of people taking VERA - i.e. they will just retire or if some opportunity comes along in a year or two, they'll take it, if not they're retired, their kids are grown etc. I don't see anyone taking it who needs a job in say 3 or 6 months or whatever bc the VSIP isn't that much money and no one trusts that they can land a job in DC in just a few months given how saturated the market is.

There's that many people leaving SEC? Are you in a group that leans older? Because thus far I've heard of 1 person in my immediate workspace. I mean I do think there will be more as others are considering it and probably don't want to say until March 20. But I haven't heard 1/2 the group out the door or anything.

Anonymous wrote:If the SEC is self-funded, then gutting it won't be related to cost cutting. Wow you don't say

It’s not self-funded. It’s budget neutral, actually positive, since it brings in more than it costs. But it is still funded by appropriations from Congress, not the money it brings in, which goes to the Treasury.

If the SEC is self-funded, then gutting it won't be related to cost cutting. Wow you don't say

Trump and Elon need the SEC to push all their instruments through. They'll be fine for now. Next year tho...

the sec should be flatter. anyone not doing actual casework should be eliminated-that means SO’s and AD’s. we get enough review through MTSE reviews from OGC, OCC, others whio actually provide substantive comments

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Imagine the executive committee at a law firm decides arbitrarily they want to reduce associate headcount to 90% of the 2019 level. Then instead of gradually eliminating the worst performers they decide immediately to remove all the associates in entire practice groups and satellite offices until they hit their desired number. The fired associates are not given any time (or incentive) to transition matters, nor has the firm made any plans as to how to allocate their work among the remaining associates.

This is playing out in attorney-heavy offices and agencies across government. As to what happens next, no one knows.

I disagree with that statement. Most agencies of SEC size are not made up of 70% attorney staff. Your analogy makes total sense but primarily for SEC and not other agencies. Even the other FIRREAs are not so attorney-heavy.

There is DOJ so yeah maybe it's happening there too but their probationaries in certain divisions were let go ... and they are also much bigger so maybe it would not have impacted them the same way.

Anonymous wrote:Imagine the executive committee at a law firm decides arbitrarily they want to reduce associate headcount to 90% of the 2019 level. Then instead of gradually eliminating the worst performers they decide immediately to remove all the associates in entire practice groups and satellite offices until they hit their desired number. The fired associates are not given any time (or incentive) to transition matters, nor has the firm made any plans as to how to allocate their work among the remaining associates.

This is playing out in attorney-heavy offices and agencies across government. As to what happens next, no one knows.

I disagree with that statement. Most agencies of SEC size are not made up of 70% attorney staff. Your analogy makes total sense but primarily for SEC and not other agencies. Even the other FIRREAs are not so attorney-heavy.

Imagine the executive committee at a law firm decides arbitrarily they want to reduce associate headcount to 90% of the 2019 level. Then instead of gradually eliminating the worst performers they decide immediately to remove all the associates in entire practice groups and satellite offices until they hit their desired number. The fired associates are not given any time (or incentive) to transition matters, nor has the firm made any plans as to how to allocate their work among the remaining associates.

This is playing out in attorney-heavy offices and agencies across government. As to what happens next, no one knows.

I don't understand why this country is unable to prevent Trump and Musk from using government positions to evade the consequences of their unlawful actions.