When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do? -- John Maynard Keynes

Sunday, March 10, 2013

SEC snoozed on Money Funds, now it's a sore loser

The SEC--remember these guys? They are the ones who were too busy watching porn on their government computers, in their government offices, on the taxpayer "dime" to be bothered with the developing financial crisis. They completely dropped the ball, and now they are sore at others for "taking over" the SEC's job--

This is interesting and revelatory (read the full article at link below, excerpt follows):

SEC Missed Chance on Money Funds, Should Step Aside Now - Bloomberg: "A former member of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission recently asked me to co-sign a letter urging a federal oversight body to refrain from taking regulatory action normally left to the SEC. I believe deeply in the independence of the agency I once led, but in this case, I could not place my loyalty to the organization above the larger goal of protecting individual investors. So I refused to sign. Every regulatory agency operates with a core mandate, and the SEC’s is clear: Promote healthy and well-functioning markets, and protect investors through appropriate regulations and enforcement actions. The SEC must always place that mission above all other goals, including its own sovereignty and independence. When it doesn’t, others may have to. . . . . At every turn, had the SEC wanted to take the issue up, it could have done so. The FSOC made that clear in its own deliberations and would have preferred it. To suggest that the SEC should be permitted to act on this issue without interference is missing the obvious: The SEC would already have taken action were it not for industry interference. If anyone interfered with the regulatory process, it wasn’t the FSOC. . . . We have also seen thoughtful regulatory reform ideas brought forward by the industry and others. While I welcome these actions, voluntary reform is never a substitute for regulatory action. If the SEC won’t take action, it would be irresponsible for the FSOC not to. . . .  I normally find myself among the loudest defenders of the principle of regulatory independence. But in this case, the national interest -- prevention of systemic risk -- trumps all other considerations. In this case, the SEC’s mandate to protect the public interest is paramount. If it won’t pursue that mandate, the FSOC should." (excerpt source: Bloomberg, by Arthur Levitt)

SEC snoozed--now it's the loser.


The Big Picture

Financial Crisis - The Telegraph

JohnTheCrowd.com | The Sailing Website

Craig Newmark - craigconnects