Memo to Obama: Mary Schapiro is not 'change' at the SEC

[BlackAsCoal]

Isn't it finally time to put someone in charge of the SEC who really cares about investors?

There are many well qualified candidates. Here are a few suggestions:

William Galvin: The highly respected Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. He has taken on the industry and recovered millions of dollars of damages for aggrieved investors.

Joe Borg: Executive Director of the Alabama Securities Commission. Mr. Borg has a stellar record of protecting the interests of investors in Alabama.

Andrew Cuomo: The Attorney General of New York. He knows the industry and has shown great tenacity in exposing the recent fraud involving Auction Rate Bonds and other misdeeds.

Mary Schapiro, who is President-elect Obama's choice, has spent her career protecting the securities industry from investors.

Ms. Schapiro is the head of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, an industry organization that engages in self-regulation. It hasn't done a very good job, as recent events demonstrate.

FINRA administers the mandatory arbitration system, which forces investors to arbitrate all disputes with its members (virtually all brokerage firms in the U.S.). The arbitration rules are established by FINRA and supervised by the SEC. These tribunals have a well-documented (pdf) anti-investor bias. Investors who have been victimized by their brokers are often re-victimized by these panels.

Secretary Galvin testified before Congress that FINRA panels represented "an industry sponsored damage-containment and control program masquerading as a juridical proceeding."

With Mary Schapiro as SEC Chief, the fox will be guarding the hen house. In this case, instead of hens, it is investor rights that are at stake.

This is not "change." It is Washington business as usual.

more at link --
Memo to Obama: Mary Schapiro is not 'change' at the SEC - BloggingStocks

Just in case anyone is still wondering where all that money Obama raised came from .. close your eyes and Wall Street will come to you.

 

[RodISHI]

Thank you. I agree. If they do not demand a change to protect investors no one is going to want to invest. Doesn't he know that is a major factor as to why America is in the mess it is in?

Federal agencies have become so accustom to creative accounting and letting false reports slide it is a wonder the country's economy did not go to shit earlier. They have propped up this thing way to long with smoke and mirrors and he is going to add to the future burden by not putting a stop to it now.

This is where I'd put my vote in the matter if I had one. "Andrew Cuomo: The Attorney General of New York. He knows the industry and has shown great tenacity in exposing the recent fraud involving Auction Rate Bonds and other misdeeds."

 

[CSM]

Yep...lots of change being brought about alright. Same old faces changing from one job to another....

 

[jillian]

Yep...lots of change being brought about alright. Same old faces changing from one job to another....

Some old COMPETENT faces....

and no wingnut neo-con agenda.

works for me.

I'm not sure why anyone thought that everything was going to suddenly change besides the IQ in the oval office and the fact that intelligent policies will hopefully be followed, as opposed to the pathetic display we saw for eight years.

 

[Lycurgus]

Good post and valid points.

Further, people are expecting change because that is the platform he ran on. The deal according to him was to do away with old Washington and the stale thinking of Washington insiders. So it is more than fair to expect his appointments to reflect that platform.

 

[editec]

Somebody mentioned the potential fallout of the most recent $50 billion dollars scam.

Foreign investors might begin eschewing investing in American markets becuase why?

Because America is no longer regulating and monitoring their markets to protect investors from fraud.

For those of you with a taste for irony, the above is a generous portion of that dish.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

Thank you. I agree. If they do not demand a change to protect investors no one is going to want to invest. Doesn't he know that is a major factor as to why America is in the mess it is in?

Federal agencies have become so accustom to creative accounting and letting false reports slide it is a wonder the country's economy did not go to shit earlier. They have propped up this thing way to long with smoke and mirrors and he is going to add to the future burden by not putting a stop to it now.

This is where I'd put my vote in the matter if I had one. "Andrew Cuomo: The Attorney General of New York. He knows the industry and has shown great tenacity in exposing the recent fraud involving Auction Rate Bonds and other misdeeds."

Absolutely Cuomo.

Schapiro championed all the things you correctly pointed out that went wrong. There was no protection of investors and the failed self-regulation that Schapiro supported should not have been her ticket to become Head of the SEC.

By now it should be clear to even the most loyal supporter why Wall Street is so in love with Obama.

 

[RodISHI]

Absolutely Cuomo.

Schapiro championed all the things you correctly pointed out that went wrong. There was no protection of investors and the failed self-regulation that Schapiro supported should not have been her ticket to become Head of the SEC.

By now it should be clear to even the most loyal supporter why Wall Street is so in love with Obama.

Cuomo would be the fastest way to put at least a little bit of confidence back into the system. I know it will take more than putting in the same ole faces that had already sold themselves for nothing out there.

If people do not start taking a stand there will be little left for their children and grandchildren and their grandchildren's children.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

Some old COMPETENT faces....

and no wingnut neo-con agenda.

works for me.

I'm not sure why anyone thought that everything was going to suddenly change besides the IQ in the oval office and the fact that intelligent policies will hopefully be followed, as opposed to the pathetic display we saw for eight years.

It's simple .. they thought so because CHANGE is what Obama was preaching everyday of the campaign.

Now there is surprise because people thought he was serious?

What you have is a wing-nut neo-lib agenda .. and most respectfully, you keep missing the clues my good sister .. take that back .. I think you keep ignoring the clues. You're much too intelligent to miss them.

Larry Summers? .. C'mon, you can't tell me you missed that.

 

[editec]

Change, if it comes at all, will manifest as policies, not as appointments, BAC.

I really do think we ought to wait till Obama does something untoward before we lynch him, don't you?

 

[RodISHI]

Somebody mentioned the potential fallout of the most recent $50 billion dollars scam.

Foreign investors might begin eschewing investing in American markets becuase why?

Because America is no longer regulating and monitoring their markets to protect investors from fraud.

For those of you with a taste for irony, the above is a generous portion of that dish.

They are not doing a whole lot of anything to stop any fraud. It was not until very recently here that a few judges have not allowed mortgage/loan fraud to just stand with no recourse to the borrower.

Our doctor's place went into a bank created foreclosure recently. He just got through court on the matter and to my delight the judge in the matter tossed the national bank's case. It has happened to many times when one person such as myself knows of so many out there that are fighting this beast that has consumed the American dream of owning their own home or business.

Many of these guys are using honest money from people who have a little savings to strip equity, foreclose, take the loss, get reimbursed with fed money or insurance money, take the IRS deduction through fabricated 1099's, swap the property to a related company and resell it all at a profit. It is a scheme that has helped to bring this country to it's knees and thousands of people have been trying to tell this now for years as it happened to them.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

Cuomo would be the fastest way to put at least a little bit of confidence back into the system. I know it will take more than putting in the same ole faces that had already sold themselves for nothing out there.

If people do not start taking a stand there will be little left for their children and grandchildren and their grandchildren's children.

Unfortunately my friend, Americans have no understanding of the Declaration of Independence, and don't have a clue what the difference is between a citizen and a subject. No clue.

We believe we're supposed to sit back and let politicians do whatever the hell they want. then when things go bad, blame it all on him or her .. just as we did with Bush. We make excuses for their lies and blame "the other side" for their failures.

The one thing the vultures in Washington and on Wall Street can count on is that the American people will not take a stand. Obama could have appointed Marc Rich to head the SEC and his supporters would barely make a peep.

As I was reminded by a wise poster here .. silence is failure.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Hmm, republicans couldn't fix it and it appears that the dems won't either. You know what's next right?

Boston Tea Party. Tax Revolt.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

Change, if it comes at all, will manifest as policies, not as appointments, BAC.

I really do think we ought to wait till Obama does something untoward before we lynch him, don't you?

Understandably, lynching isn't the word I would use, but I do not believe we should wait to critique any and everything that concerns this country or our future .. nor do I believe we should pretend we're stupid.

Policies are derived by and through appointments. I do not believe we should pretend we don't know that. I believe that shouting about how bad and corrupt bailouts are, then saying nothing about appointments of the very people who supported the failed conditions and mechanisms that led to the crisis is indicative of why they fuck us over and get away with it.

 

[jillian]

It's simple .. they thought so because CHANGE is what Obama was preaching everyday of the campaign.

Now there is surprise because people thought he was serious?

What you have is a wing-nut neo-lib agenda .. and most respectfully, you keep missing the clues my good sister .. take that back .. I think you keep ignoring the clues. You're much too intelligent to miss them.

Larry Summers? .. C'mon, you can't tell me you missed that.

But what is "change"? I never thought he was going to be anything but moderate or cautious. To me that IS change. I never wanted broad, sweeping toss out the baby with the bathwater kind of change.... particularly when he's got so much to fix that was broken over the last 8 years.

I'm sorry. Caution and moderation doesn't offend me. Clinton's problem when he went into office was he tried to move too fast on things that burned his political capital and lost congress... which turned out to haunt him every day for the next six years of his administration.

Like it or not, but I will tell you that from what I see, Obama is going to try to make sure he maintains a running approval rating of between 60 and 70%. He will not allow himself to lose congress if he can help it. Circumstances or a lack of success may do it for him, but I think everything he does will be calculated to political advantage.

That means NOT going too far left... it means moving things forward. I don't think competence has to be left or right. And even if someone wants peace, they need to hire people who know how AND WHEN to wage war. To fix the economy, you don't want people who are going to toss out the economic system we have ... you want people who can fix what's broken to the extent possible.

And you know my feelings on the other issues. I was MOST concerned about change in certain of our foreign policy. I am now comfortable that the stupid policies of running a war of choice will be brought to an end fairly quickly, but the things that matter to me won't change all that much. Given our different pov's on that, it's clear we'd feel differently about how much was changed.

Mostly, though, Obama is a chicago pol... he's going to be a pragmatist and is already showing that he's going to be a brilliant political tactician.

 

[editec]

Understandably, lynching isn't the word I would use, but I do not believe we should wait to critique any and everything that concerns this country or our future .. nor do I believe we should pretend we're stupid.

I understand your objection to Obama's appointments, BAC. I share many of your concerns.

STill I think the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and as yet dinner has not been served.

Policies are derived by and through appointments. I do not believe we should pretend we don't know that.

No, they're not. They might be, but we cannot know that until policies are made.

I believe that shouting about how bad and corrupt bailouts are, then saying nothing about appointments of the very people who supported the failed conditions and mechanisms that led to the crisis is indicative of why they fuck us over and get away with it.

You know...here's the thing.

People often do things in one situation that they won't do in another.

Conditions on the ground have changed so wildly in the last six months that I do not presume to know how any of these cabinet players will respond.

I cannot think of a single POTUS who didn't do something that I found appalling, or one who didn't do something that I applaude.

I'm always surprised at what former Presidents did, based on my overall asscessment of who they were would have lead me to think they'd have gone another way.

If I merely presumed that I could knew what those people will do, then I'd be more sympathetic to your complaints.

I tend to give people enough rope ( in the form of the benefit of the doubt) to hang themselves, BAC.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

But what is "change"? I never thought he was going to be anything but moderate or cautious. To me that IS change. I never wanted broad, sweeping toss out the baby with the bathwater kind of change.... particularly when he's got so much to fix that was broken over the last 8 years.

I'm sorry. Caution and moderation doesn't offend me. Clinton's problem when he went into office was he tried to move too fast on things that burned his political capital and lost congress... which turned out to haunt him every day for the next six years of his administration.

Like it or not, but I will tell you that from what I see, Obama is going to try to make sure he maintains a running approval rating of between 60 and 70%. He will not allow himself to lose congress if he can help it. Circumstances or a lack of success may do it for him, but I think everything he does will be calculated to political advantage.

That means NOT going too far left... it means moving things forward. I don't think competence has to be left or right. And even if someone wants peace, they need to hire people who know how AND WHEN to wage war. To fix the economy, you don't want people who are going to toss out the economic system we have ... you want people who can fix what's broken to the extent possible.

And you know my feelings on the other issues. I was MOST concerned about change in certain of our foreign policy. I am now comfortable that the stupid policies of running a war of choice will be brought to an end fairly quickly, but the things that matter to me won't change all that much. Given our different pov's on that, it's clear we'd feel differently about how much was changed.

Mostly, though, Obama is a chicago pol... he's going to be a pragmatist and is already showing that he's going to be a brilliant political tactician.

I am amazed .. stunned .. and floored. Seriously.

Almost speechless.

As I've said, he could have appointed Marc Rich and his supporters would have found an excuse for it. "He's just being pragmatic."

Kudos to the plutocracy .. they know the American people very well.

Incredible

 

[RodISHI]

Thing is editec, if they do not get someone in there to go after the fraud that has been going on, the people have little to no means to recover. It is that simple.

The banks and the markets the way they have been in the last ten years has allowed the fraud to escalate at an alarming rate.

 

[editec]

Thing is editec, if they do not get someone in there to go after the fraud that has been going on, the people have little to no means to recover. It is that simple.

Yeah I understand that.

But is it that simple?

Can you know they won't go after fraud based on what they did for Clinton?

The banks and the markets the way they have been in the last ten years has allowed the fraud to escalate at an alarming rate.

No argument from me.

The question is what policies will change to prevent it?

Until we have policies to critique I think it premature to assume we know.

 

[RodISHI]

Yeah I understand that.

But is it that simple?

Can you know they won't go after fraud based on what they did for Clinton?



No argument from me.

The question is what policies will change to prevent it?

Until we have policies to critique I think it premature to assume we know.

There are already many laws on the books that can be used to go after the ones that have already ripped the people. Fact is if Obama does not get people in there to take them to task nothing changes and the hole gets bigger and the American family goes farther down the tubes.