The Objective Standard Blog
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Does the SEC Care about Fraud?
Anyone concerned with freedom in the financial markets should read this new, internal review by the SEC, in which the Commission admits that it:
- failed to “take appropriate action” related to fraud at Allied Capital, a politically-connected company staffed with former SEC employees;
- did not visit Allied’s offices a single time during their “investigation”—“even though they were located just blocks from the SEC”;
- never investigated “whether Allied was a Ponzi scheme, because of how it financed its dividends” (using proceeds raised from the sale of stock to uninformed investors);
- “inexplicably” deleted the work papers from an examination of Allied in which an SEC employee expressed concerns that the company was engaging in a Ponzi scheme;
- vigorously investigated David Einhorn—the man who exposed Allied’s fraud —both “after Allied met with [SEC] officials” and “without any evidence of wrongdoing” on the part of Einhorn;
- gave clearance to an SEC employee who “supervised the investigation against Einhorn” to register as a lobbyist for Allied immediately after leaving the agency;
- took no action when Allied admitted to the SEC that one of the company’s “agents” had engaged in “illegally obtaining Einhorn’s phone records”;
- concluded soon after the investigation that Einhorn was not guilty of violating federal securities laws but never told him what his status was with respect to the law and whether he was still being investigated “despite his request for such notification.”
The SEC is under new management and, according to The Washington Post, has promised “to fix the problems.” But since then it has:
- sucker-punched Goldman Sachs with charges of fraud for letting sophisticated investors pick what they want to buy from a list of what other investors want to sell;
- continued with the fraud charges against Goldman despite a 3-2 split along party lines among the five commissioners;
- timed the charges to coincide with the push for financial legislation by Obama.
The SEC has not been and is not concerned with prosecuting fraud. Since its inception, the SEC has pursued not justice, but power, and it has used that power to support its political masters. The case against Goldman is more of the same.
Related Article:
Related Post:
Image: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jsmoorman/2298671281/
Posted in: Business and Economics, Individual Rights and Law
- Next Post: There’s Nothing “Bright” About the Stimulus Bill
- Previous Post: Today is “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day”
Email Updates
To receive TOS updates, click here.
Featured Posts
- Atlas Shrugged and Ayn Rand's Morality of Egoism
- The Little Dictators
- How to Solve America's Terrorism Problem in 5 Easy Steps
- Government Intervention: It's Not Just Bad for Business
- Altruism: the Morality of Logical Fallacies
Topics
- Announcements (135)
- Ayn Rand and Objectivism (85)
- Business and Economics (171)
- Education (42)
- Environmentalism (44)
- Events (91)
- Foreign Policy and War (179)
- Healthcare (69)
- History (35)
- Individual Rights and Law (280)
- Philosophy (113)
- Psychology (5)
- Religion (111)
- Science and Technology (47)
- The Arts (31)
Blog Archive
- Recent Posts
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
The Objective Standard Blog is powered by WordPress.