Posts tagged SEC

Investors Anonymous

    <p><a href="http://reason.com/blog/2011/05/13/a-knowledge-problem-with-insid">A Knowledge Problem with Insider Trading Law. <cite>Brian Doherty: Reason Magazine articles and blog posts.</cite> (2011-05-16)</a>:</p><blockquote><q>Reihan Salam at The Daily is of course glad hedge fund villain Raj Rajaratnam was convicted for insider trading, blah blah, but spells out one of the perverse results of keeping those who know the most about companies (theoretically) from helping spread that knowledge and help bake it into the...</q></blockquote>

How the regulatory arm of the Money Monopoly — in order to “protect” small investors from predatory insiders, natch — ends up encouraging, nay demanding, faceless corporations with governance alienated from the enterprise and unaccountable to investors.

Revolving Door

(Via Sheldon Richman.)

From Zachary A. Goldfarb’s recent article for the Washington Post (2010-12-30) on that Left-wing radical Obama and his revolutionary socialist administration:

The president’s recently departed budget director is joining Citigroup.

The New York Federal Reserve Bank’s derivatives expert is joining Goldman Sachs.

And numerous investigators from the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission are joining Wall Street’s top law firms.

The vast overhaul of financial regulations and the renewed intensity of investigations into white-collar crime has been a boon for regulators, prosecutors and financial policymakers looking to cash in on their government experience and contacts.

In recent months, prominent officials from the White House, Justice Department, SEC, banking regulators and other agencies, both federal and state, have been walking through the proverbial revolving door to join Goldman, Citi, other financial companies and top law firms in Washington and New York.

— Zachary A. Goldfarb (2010-12-30), Regulators are finding opportunities at firms looking for government experience, in the Washington Post

You might think that I am going to say that all this poses a conflict of interest for the regulators. (Certainly, that’s how the Washington Post puts it.) But I’m not going to say that. That’s the conventional way of talking about it, when it comes up, but the conventional way of talking about it is nonsense. There is no conflict, unless you believe some very unrealistic things about the interests of government (even a progressive government) and its politically-appointed regulators.

I don’t: there is no conflict; they were already all in this together. This is nothing more than business- and politics-as-usual, and the state-capitalist system is functioning exactly as designed.

See also: