by Zero Hedge - January 24th, 2011 4:10 pm
Courtesy of Anal_yst, Stone Street Advisors
I realize the SEC’s task is a gargantuan one, especially considering the severely constrained resources, but there’s just no excuse for things like this. The SEC’s Division of Risk, Strategy, and Financial Innovation – the group created in 2009 to supposedly "enhance our capabilities and help identify developing risks and trends in the financial markets" – does not have anyone running the Office of Data & Data Analytics. How the hell is the Division supposed to do its job if there’s no one analyzing data?!?!?
I’d say to be fair, this website hasn’t been updated since 6/15/2010, but that actually makes this situation WORSE. How dysfunctional does an organization have to be that organization actions are not properly communicated via press releases and modifications to the organization’s website? This is not freaking rocket science!
If you think this is bad, get read, because it gets even worse: The head of the Division, Henry T. C. Hu left this month to go back to academia. According to an article from 1/20/2011 in the WSJ, his temporary replacement is the Division’s former Deputy Director, Jonathan Sobokin. The SEC issued a press release on 11/18/2010 that Hu would be leaving the organization, yet the "News" page of the Division’s website has no mention of Sobokin taking the reins. As a matter of fact, that is the most recent press release that appears on the page!
It’s one thing to suck at organizational communications, its another thing to take at least two months to find a replacement for a very important position, especially when given what appears to be advance notice. And it is another thing entirely to take well over a year to staff the Office tasked with performing the data analysis the Division needs in order to be effective!
The only good thing I can say here is that at least they brought Rick Bookstaber into the fold. I’ve met Rick and he’s a very, very smart man, and while I don’t always agree with him, I’m quite glad he’s at the SEC. Whether or not he has any authority or sway within the SEC is a whole different story upon which I can do little more than speculate…
by ilene - July 28th, 2010 4:39 pm
This is pretty rotten, and there’s no excuse. I doubt anyone will admit to writing the provision exempting the SEC from FOIA requests. – Ilene
Courtesy of Karl Denninger at The Market Ticker
And what’s better, now the lapdogs of Wall Street are immune from FOIA requests!
The law, signed last week by President Obama, exempts the SEC from disclosing records or information derived from "surveillance, risk assessments, or other regulatory and oversight activities." Given that the SEC is a regulatory body, the provision covers almost every action by the agency, lawyers say. Congress and federal agencies can request information, but the public cannot.
That argument comes despite the President saying that one of the cornerstones of the sweeping new legislation was more transparent financial markets. Indeed, in touting the new law, Obama specifically said it would “increase transparency in financial dealings."
Mr. President, you’re a lying sack of crap.
Nor is this theoretical either. Fox News has already had an FOIA denied:
The SEC cited the new law Tuesday in a FOIA action brought by FOX Business Network.
Oh, by the way, this would mean that a Madoff or Stanford "thing" would leave the SEC immune from FOIA requests by the Press (including the "mainstream" along with media folks like myself) to discover whether they had effective and early notice that they intentionally ignored.
Isn’t that convenient, given that they did exactly that with Madoff and, it can be argued, Stanford as well?
Indeed, the SEC, The Fed, and Treasury have all tried to refuse compliance with FOIA requests into the backstories of the financial meltdown.
FOIA requests that could (and in some cases have, when they were forced to be complied with via lawsuits) reveal double-dealing, "sweetheart" treatment, and even willful blindness that, in many people’s opinion (including mine) reaches the level of intentional collusion that, in a private context, would lead to civil and/or criminal racketeering charges.
To President Obama and CONgress for sticking this in FinReg (and yeah, I missed it, even though I read the entire damn thing):
Top picture credit: Jr. Deputy Accountant
by ilene - July 23rd, 2010 6:05 pm
Now that Obama has signed FinReg into law, Roosevelt Institute Fellow Mike Konczal appeared on The Breakdown with Chris Hayes yesterday to discuss the bill. Confused about the entire financial meltdown? Mike’s got you covered. He breaks the crisis down into four interconnected sectors: an exploitative, under-regulated system of consumer finance; dark markets in derivatives; the failures of “too big to fail” banks and the ripple effects they caused; and shadow banks that were able to avoid regulations (and also lacking, as Mike says, the “toilet training” necessary to behave).
These four sectors will also be the basis used for grading the potency of the bill. And as Mike notes, while it offers opportunities for some much-needed changes, it still falls short in several areas.
Listen to the audio file on the Original Page.
And check out some of Mike’s latest pieces on ND20:
by ilene - July 21st, 2010 1:37 pm
Courtesy of New Deal 2.0, by Marshall Auerback
FinReg may fall short if power is channeled into Geithner’s hands.
More depressing news from the “change” President. The Washington Post has reported that one of the major impacts of the FinReg bill passed last week by Congress is the accretion of new power to Obama’s Treasury Secretary. According to the Post, Tim Geithner stands to inherit vast power to shape bank regulations, oversee financial markets and create a consumer protection agency.
Make no mistake: this is Timmy’s bill, plain and simple, as the Post makes clear: “The bill not only hews closely to the initial draft he released last summer but also anoints him — as long as he remains Treasury secretary — as the chief of a new council of senior regulators.”
The Geithner Treasury repeatedly pushed back against many sensible legislative proposals that would have made significant structural changes to practices that brought about the current economic crisis. And the article itself represents latest in a series of attempts to embellish the Treasury Secretary’s hagiography.
Reading it, one wonders whether the Washington Post inhabits a strange parallel universe. Have the writers actually paid attention to what is truly happening in the economy? The WaPo persists in towing the party line that Geithner’s tenure has been marked with conspicuous success, supposedly by advocating a response to the financial crisis that allegedly later proved correct: “Geithner vigorously resisted calls by some lawmakers and financial experts to nationalize the nation’s largest and most troubled banks during the most perilous days. Instead, he helped get the financial system back on its feet, in particular by pressing for stress tests of big banks.” (my emphasis)
Oh, really? I would argue that Washington continues to allow the big banks to operate “business as usual” and to cook the books to show profits so that they can pay out big bonuses to the geniuses who created the toxic waste that brought on the crisis. Most continue to show profits based not on fundamentally health lending activity, but one-off gains, and accounting gimmickry. Commenting on the latest JP Morgan results, my friend and colleague Randy Wray has noted: