Sound familiar?

by Prometheus 6
November 16, 2003 - 8:51am.
on News

S.E.C.'s Oversight of Mutual Funds Is Said to Be Lax
By STEPHEN LABATON
The S.E.C. was captive to the industry when writing new regulations and was severely short of staff and money.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Submitted by Al-Muhajabah (not verified) on November 16, 2003 - 4:51pm.

Does the article explain who "said" that the SEC was lax? I've taken an irrational dislike to headlines written in the passive voice like this. "So-and-so accuses the SEC of being lax" would pack a lot more punch.

Submitted by P6 (not verified) on November 16, 2003 - 9:46pm.

They quoted a number of Clinton era officials and the founder of Vangaurd Funds.

Submitted by Phelps (not verified) on November 18, 2003 - 12:16am.

I don't see it as a crisis yet. I think that Sarbanes-Oxley was overdue for corporations, but I'm not certain that funds are in the same place. I think that the civil courts will be able to straighten this stuff out. Everything in the funds is about money, so money is what you have to put at risk when things get shady. A few eight and nine digit bad faith lawsuits will get any shady fund managers to clean up their acts faster than the threat of federal prison.This is one place that you can get libertarians on your side. Corporations are a construct of the state: you want limited liability, you give up some rights for it. You are still going to have a hard time selling something that isn't cooperative like the free market, but there is some wiggle room.

Submitted by P6 (not verified) on November 18, 2003 - 4:16pm.

Corporations are a construct of the state: you want limited liability, you give up some rights for it.

That's the way it should work, anyway. Truthfully, I think all the state creations should exists to serve the humans that make up society.

Submitted by Phelps (not verified) on November 18, 2003 - 6:41pm.

Truthfully, I think all the state creations should exists to serve the humans that make up society.

The only problem is that all these state creations still come down to the citizens running them. You can't have a creation that is its own entity without it leading to tyranny. You can have a creation of convenience (like a corporation) that gives certain privileges in return for a stronger duty (like the fiscal duty a corporate officer has to shareholders.)When you get right down to it, government is people (and the more people it is spread out across the better.) It is no less fallible than the people that constitute it.

Submitted by P6 (not verified) on November 18, 2003 - 7:31pm.

The only problem is that all these state creations still come down to the citizens running them. You can't have a creation that is its own entity without it leading to tyranny.

No argument here. That's the problem that's looks like it's leading to a corporate oligarchic state.