May 24, 2012

One Reason the SEC Can’t Regulate Wall Street

 

Regulators, particularly those within the SEC, took a lot of criticism for their inability to prevent the financial crisis in 2008. And rightly so. The complex CDOs and credit default swaps were all poorly regulated and this whole cottage industry that arose to, in essence, gamble on the real estate industry brought the global economy to the brink.

So feel free to continue piling on the regulators. I’m sure I will.

But sometimes you see something that adds a little more perspective. And today that comes from Forbes, which published the well-titled piece “10 Wall Street Expenses That Make The SEC’s Budget Look Pathetic” in response to the ongoing Washington debate over the size of SEC’s budget. (President Obama wants to raise it from the current $1.1 billion to $1.4 billion while House Republicans want to chop $25 million off the current total, according to Forbes.)

It isn’t apples-to-apples, but their list makes you wonder how always-behind-the-times-anyway bureaucrats could ever hope to compete with the savvy titans of the Street. The most glaring comes in looking at the $4 billion JPMorgan maintains for its litigation reserves alone. As Forbes writer Halah Touryalai puts it, “Yes — that means the money JPM is saving so it can fight or settle lawsuits is 4x the size of what the SEC has to regulate the entire securities industry.”

Kind of like taking a spork to a gun fight.

Risk Management Magazine and Risk Management Monitor. Copyright 2012 Risk and Insurance Management Society, Inc. All rights reserved.

About the Author

Senior Editor

Jared Wade is the senior editor of Risk Management magazine and the Risk Management Monitor blog.

212-655-5919

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.