(no title)
rschneid | 1 year ago
My only point is that the notion of 'legal' can get very fuzzy when you're talking about an industry with so many private/self-interested entities that rival or exceed intellectual/manpower of the agencies responsible for regulation.
If you want to learn more about the SEC's role or dereliction of duty in the Enron case you could start here: https://www.investopedia.com/updates/enron-scandal-summary/#...
Google could lead you to more evidence, if you wish to explore the hypothesis further...
JumpCrisscross|1 year ago
They’re all derivative.
> the notion of 'legal' can get very fuzzy when you're talking about an industry with so many private/self-interested entities
Sure. You’re describing ambiguity outside securities trading.
> more about the SEC's role or dereliction of duty in the Enron case
I asked for one example of something the SEC had a mandate to do that it didn’t.
rschneid|1 year ago
These mandates are, of course, subjective and vague enough to be interpreted a variety of ways whether you view 'investors' as institutions, households, individuals, etc... What you define as 'fair/orderly/efficient', and what meaningful 'capital formation' really is.
When SEC approved Enron's change in account reporting practices from historical cost to mtm, I would argue that the SEC failed it's mandate to protect investors by allowing disingenuously optimistic instrument valuations. You could argue that eventually the SEC fulfilled its mandate by recovering much of the misappropriate funds, but it's hard to say they didn't also facilitate the disorder in approving these instruments given how that story concludes with a corporate collapse and flurry of regulation...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes%E2%80%93Oxley_Act