(no title)
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...
JumpCrisscross|1 year ago
In a broad sense, sure. But that means making the SEC both an auditor and determiner of fair value. Even after the ensuing flurry of rule making, that is very much not part of the SEC’s remit.
There is a reasonable debate to be had around whether it should be. But the SEC not double checking auditors is not evidence of its lawlessness.
rschneid|1 year ago
But my point wasn't even to say whether a given industry as broad as finance is 'lawless' or not, that's your sweeping strawman. I was just saying that in Finance of ALL industries, the line between lawful and illegal has been, and continues to be literally, morally and philosophically blurry...