The following information was recently released on the SEC government web site. It is in regards to brokers allowing certain customers direct access to the exchanges without going through a broker/dealer.
Broker/dealers are subject to certain regulations when using the exchanges which customers do not have to follow. Unfiltered trades lead to trades which may be improper which can cause instability in the market.
“Washington, D.C., Jan. 13, 2010 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today voted unanimously to propose a new rule that would effectively prohibit broker-dealers from providing customers with "unfiltered" or "naked" access to an exchange or alternative trading system (ATS).
The SEC's proposed rule would require brokers with market access, including those who sponsor customers' access to an exchange, to put in place risk management controls and supervisory procedures. Among other things, the procedures would help prevent erroneous orders, ensure compliance with regulatory requirements, and enforce pre-set credit or capital thresholds.
"Unfiltered access is similar to giving your car keys to a friend who doesn't have a license and letting him drive unaccompanied," said SEC Chairman Mary L. Schapiro. "Today's proposal would require that if a broker-dealer is going to loan his keys, he must not only remain in the car, but he must also see to it that the person driving observes the rules before the car is ever put into drive."
Broker-dealers use a 'special pass' known as their market participant identifier (MPID) to electronically access an exchange or ATS and place an order for a customer. Broker-dealers are subject to the federal securities laws as well as the rules of the self-regulatory organizations that regulate their operation.
However, those laws and rules do not apply to a non-broker-dealer customer who a broker-dealer provides with their MPID in order to individually gain access to an exchange or ATS. Under this arrangement known as "direct market access" or "sponsored access," the customer can sometimes place an order that flows directly into the markets without first passing through the broker-dealer's systems and without being pre-screened by the broker-dealer in any manner. This type of direct market access arrangement is known as "unfiltered" access and "naked" access. A recent report estimated that naked access accounts for 38 percent of the daily volume for equities traded in the U.S. markets.
Through sponsored access, especially "unfiltered" or "naked" sponsored access arrangements, there is the potential that financial, regulatory and other risks associated with the placement of orders are not being appropriately managed. In particular, there is an increased likelihood that customers will enter erroneous orders as a result of computer malfunction or human error, fail to comply with various regulatory requirements, or breach a credit or capital limit.
The SEC's proposed rule would require broker-dealers to establish, document and maintain a system of risk management controls and supervisory procedures reasonably designed to manage the financial, regulatory and other risks related to its market access, including access on behalf of sponsored customers.
Broker-dealers would be required to:
Create financial risk management controls reasonably designed to prevent the entry of orders that exceed appropriate pre-set credit or capital thresholds, or that appear to be erroneous.
Create regulatory risk management controls reasonably designed to ensure compliance with all regulatory requirements applicable in connection with market access.
Have financial and regulatory risk management controls applied automatically on a pre-trade basis before orders route to an exchange or ATS.
Maintain risk management controls and supervisory procedures under the direct and exclusive control of the broker-dealer with market access.
Establish, document and maintain a system for regularly reviewing the effectiveness of its risk management controls and for promptly addressing any issues.
The SEC today also approved a new Nasdaq rule that requires broker-dealers offering sponsored access to Nasdaq to establish certain controls over the financial and regulatory risks of that activity. The proposed Commission rule would extend beyond the new Nasdaq rule in several respects. For example, the Commission's proposal would require the broker-dealer to automatically apply its controls on a pre-trade basis, and to retain exclusive control over those controls without delegation of this critical function to the customer or another third party. The Commission's proposal also would require broker-dealers to establish a supervisory system, including an annual CEO certification, to assure the ongoing effectiveness of its controls In addition, the Commission's proposed risk management controls would apply market-wide, whenever a broker-dealer directly accesses any exchange or ATS.”
This is a photo of the National Register of Historic Places listing with reference number 7000063
Showing posts with label WALL STREET. Show all posts
Showing posts with label WALL STREET. Show all posts
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Monday, July 26, 2010
THE SEC STOPS FRAUD IN BEVERLY HILLS
The following article was released by the SEC on January 11, 2010. It is in regards to a fraud scheme in Beverly Hills which targeted the Iranian Americans community.
“Washington, D.C., Jan. 11, 2010 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced that it has charged Beverly Hills, Calif.-based NewPoint Financial Services, Inc. and its co-owners and controller for conducting an unregistered offering fraud aimed at Iranian-Americans in the Los Angeles area. The SEC obtained an emergency court order to freeze their assets and preserve remaining funds that were collected from investors.
The SEC’s complaint, filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleges that NewPoint, co-owners John Farahi and Gissou Rastegar Farahi, and its controller Elaheh Amouei targeted investors in the Iranian-American community by touting New Point on a daily finance radio program that John Farahi hosts on a Farsi language radio station in the Los Angeles area. The SEC alleges that the Farahis or Amouei would then make appointments with interested listeners to discuss investment opportunities offered by NewPoint, and misled more than 100 investors into purchasing more than $20 million worth of debentures that they falsely told them were low-risk. Many investors also were falsely told that they were investing in FDIC-insured certificates of deposit, government bonds, or corporate bonds issued by companies backed by funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). The SEC alleges that most of the money raised was instead transferred to accounts controlled by the Farahis to, among other things, fund construction of their multi-million dollar personal residence in Beverly Hills.
“They lured victims with false promises of investment safety while secretly enriching themselves and diverting investor funds for their personal use,” said Rosalind R. Tyson, Director of the SEC’s Los Angeles Regional Office.
The SEC’s complaint further alleges that investor funds were used to engage in risky options futures trading in the stock market in which the Farahis lost more than $18 million in 2008 and the beginning of 2009. Since approximately June 2009, John Farahi and Amouei have made further misrepresentations to investors in an effort to lull them into keeping their money with NewPoint, saying that their money is safe and that they are guaranteed to get the entirety of their investment back. According to the SEC’s complaint, NewPoint lacks sufficient funds to make all investors whole, and John Farahi has been paying back some investors on a selective basis while failing to return money to other investors asking for a return of their investment.
The SEC has obtained a court order (1) freezing the assets of NewPoint, the Farahis, and Triple “J”; (2) appointing a temporary receiver over NewPoint and Triple “J”; (3) preventing the destruction of documents; (4) requiring accountings from NewPoint, the Farahis, and Triple “J”; and (5) temporarily enjoining NewPoint, the Farahis, and Amouei from future violations of the registration and antifraud violations of the federal securities laws. The SEC also seeks preliminary and permanent injunctions and civil penalties against the defendants and disgorgement with prejudgment interest against NewPoint, the Farahis, and Triple “J.” A hearing on whether a preliminary injunction should be issued against the defendants and whether a permanent receiver should be appointed is scheduled for Jan. 15, 2010, at 10:00 a.m.”
“Washington, D.C., Jan. 11, 2010 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced that it has charged Beverly Hills, Calif.-based NewPoint Financial Services, Inc. and its co-owners and controller for conducting an unregistered offering fraud aimed at Iranian-Americans in the Los Angeles area. The SEC obtained an emergency court order to freeze their assets and preserve remaining funds that were collected from investors.
The SEC’s complaint, filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleges that NewPoint, co-owners John Farahi and Gissou Rastegar Farahi, and its controller Elaheh Amouei targeted investors in the Iranian-American community by touting New Point on a daily finance radio program that John Farahi hosts on a Farsi language radio station in the Los Angeles area. The SEC alleges that the Farahis or Amouei would then make appointments with interested listeners to discuss investment opportunities offered by NewPoint, and misled more than 100 investors into purchasing more than $20 million worth of debentures that they falsely told them were low-risk. Many investors also were falsely told that they were investing in FDIC-insured certificates of deposit, government bonds, or corporate bonds issued by companies backed by funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). The SEC alleges that most of the money raised was instead transferred to accounts controlled by the Farahis to, among other things, fund construction of their multi-million dollar personal residence in Beverly Hills.
“They lured victims with false promises of investment safety while secretly enriching themselves and diverting investor funds for their personal use,” said Rosalind R. Tyson, Director of the SEC’s Los Angeles Regional Office.
The SEC’s complaint further alleges that investor funds were used to engage in risky options futures trading in the stock market in which the Farahis lost more than $18 million in 2008 and the beginning of 2009. Since approximately June 2009, John Farahi and Amouei have made further misrepresentations to investors in an effort to lull them into keeping their money with NewPoint, saying that their money is safe and that they are guaranteed to get the entirety of their investment back. According to the SEC’s complaint, NewPoint lacks sufficient funds to make all investors whole, and John Farahi has been paying back some investors on a selective basis while failing to return money to other investors asking for a return of their investment.
The SEC has obtained a court order (1) freezing the assets of NewPoint, the Farahis, and Triple “J”; (2) appointing a temporary receiver over NewPoint and Triple “J”; (3) preventing the destruction of documents; (4) requiring accountings from NewPoint, the Farahis, and Triple “J”; and (5) temporarily enjoining NewPoint, the Farahis, and Amouei from future violations of the registration and antifraud violations of the federal securities laws. The SEC also seeks preliminary and permanent injunctions and civil penalties against the defendants and disgorgement with prejudgment interest against NewPoint, the Farahis, and Triple “J.” A hearing on whether a preliminary injunction should be issued against the defendants and whether a permanent receiver should be appointed is scheduled for Jan. 15, 2010, at 10:00 a.m.”
Sunday, June 13, 2010
SEC CHARGES KENNETH IRA STAR WITH FRAUD
It seems another Wall Street investment guru has come under the scrutiny of the SEC. It looks like in this case the alleged perpetrators just openly stole funds from their client’s accounts. These alleged perpetrators stole the money in a way that they could easily be caught. The way the smart people on Wall Street steal is to pay themselves fantastical amounts of compensation no matter how poorly their companies are performing. Stealing money out of a company through perks and compensation should be the number one class at all business school. What is nice about looting a business via compensation packages is that it is legalized stealing. The government has given such schemes the stamp of approval. Setting up Ponzi schemes and taking money out of client accounts is just stupid.
The following is part of a press document released by the SEC and posted on their web site:
“Washington, D.C., May 27, 2010 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged Manhattan-based financial advisor Kenneth Ira Starr with fraud and is seeking an emergency court order to freeze his assets after he stole client money for his personal use, including the purchase last month of a multi-million dollar apartment where he and his wife now reside.
Starr and two entities he controls — Starr Investment Advisors LLC and Starr & Company LLC — have made unauthorized transfers of money in client accounts that ultimately wound up in Starr’s personal accounts. They violated securities laws pertaining to investment advisers in order to perpetrate the scheme.
Most investment advisers do not maintain physical custody of their clients’ assets, and those assets are instead held by qualified third-party custodians such as a regulated bank or a registered broker-dealer. In this case, the SEC alleges that certain client assets were held in a safe in Starr & Company’s offices despite the fact that Starr and his firms were not qualified custodians. Their ability to steal client funds was enhanced by the failure of Starr Investment Advisors to comply with asset custody rules that require firms to engage an independent public accountant to perform yearly surprise examinations of client assets in the firm’s custody.
“Starr breached his fiduciary duty as an investment adviser in the most egregious manner possible — he stole the funds his clients entrusted to him,” said George Canellos, Director of the SEC’s New York Regional Office. “Starr betrayed the trust of some clients who have looked to him for years for investment advice and financial guidance.”
According to the SEC’s complaint, filed in federal court in Manhattan, Starr and his companies transferred $7 million from the accounts of three clients between April 13 and April 16, 2010, without any authorization. The transferred funds were ultimately used to purchase a $7.6 million apartment on the Upper East Side in Manhattan on April 16. When one of the clients detected the unauthorized transfer and demanded the money be returned, Starr reimbursed that client with money siphoned from the account of another client without authorization. The other two investors have not been reimbursed.
The SEC’s complaint alleges that the unauthorized transfers in April 2010 were not the only instances when Starr misappropriated client funds. In August 2009, Starr and his entities began transferring approximately $1.7 million from the personal account of a client and from the account of a charity run by this client. These were all unauthorized transfers. In April 2010, an additional transfer of $750,000 was attempted from an account belonging to this client. But this time, Starr’s plans were frustrated because the bank alerted the client, who then halted the transfer. The client then reviewed the account transactions and uncovered the unauthorized $1.7 million transfers in 2009. When confronted about these transactions, Starr gave improbable explanations before eventually reimbursing the client with money that appears to have come from the bank account of another unrelated party.
The SEC’s complaint names two relief defendants in order to recover client assets now in their possession:
Diane Passage — Starr’s wife with whom he has a joint bank account.
Colcave LLC — An entity through which Starr purchased the apartment.
The SEC’s complaint charges each of the three defendants with violations of Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and, further, charges Starr Investment Advisors with violations of Section 206(4) of the Advisers Act and Rule 206(4)-2(a)(1) thereunder. In addition to the emergency relief, the SEC’s complaint seeks permanent injunctions barring future violations of the charged provisions of the federal securities laws, disgorgement of the defendants’ and relief defendants’ ill-gotten gains plus pre-judgment interest, and financial penalties from the defendants.”
With all the fraud charges the SEC actually files you hear of almost no criminal follow-up by the FBI or any authority that could put a few of the bad guys behind bars for at least the summer. At the very least they should have to wear a T-shirt for a month that says “I’m A Wall Street Fraudster”.
The following is part of a press document released by the SEC and posted on their web site:
“Washington, D.C., May 27, 2010 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged Manhattan-based financial advisor Kenneth Ira Starr with fraud and is seeking an emergency court order to freeze his assets after he stole client money for his personal use, including the purchase last month of a multi-million dollar apartment where he and his wife now reside.
Starr and two entities he controls — Starr Investment Advisors LLC and Starr & Company LLC — have made unauthorized transfers of money in client accounts that ultimately wound up in Starr’s personal accounts. They violated securities laws pertaining to investment advisers in order to perpetrate the scheme.
Most investment advisers do not maintain physical custody of their clients’ assets, and those assets are instead held by qualified third-party custodians such as a regulated bank or a registered broker-dealer. In this case, the SEC alleges that certain client assets were held in a safe in Starr & Company’s offices despite the fact that Starr and his firms were not qualified custodians. Their ability to steal client funds was enhanced by the failure of Starr Investment Advisors to comply with asset custody rules that require firms to engage an independent public accountant to perform yearly surprise examinations of client assets in the firm’s custody.
“Starr breached his fiduciary duty as an investment adviser in the most egregious manner possible — he stole the funds his clients entrusted to him,” said George Canellos, Director of the SEC’s New York Regional Office. “Starr betrayed the trust of some clients who have looked to him for years for investment advice and financial guidance.”
According to the SEC’s complaint, filed in federal court in Manhattan, Starr and his companies transferred $7 million from the accounts of three clients between April 13 and April 16, 2010, without any authorization. The transferred funds were ultimately used to purchase a $7.6 million apartment on the Upper East Side in Manhattan on April 16. When one of the clients detected the unauthorized transfer and demanded the money be returned, Starr reimbursed that client with money siphoned from the account of another client without authorization. The other two investors have not been reimbursed.
The SEC’s complaint alleges that the unauthorized transfers in April 2010 were not the only instances when Starr misappropriated client funds. In August 2009, Starr and his entities began transferring approximately $1.7 million from the personal account of a client and from the account of a charity run by this client. These were all unauthorized transfers. In April 2010, an additional transfer of $750,000 was attempted from an account belonging to this client. But this time, Starr’s plans were frustrated because the bank alerted the client, who then halted the transfer. The client then reviewed the account transactions and uncovered the unauthorized $1.7 million transfers in 2009. When confronted about these transactions, Starr gave improbable explanations before eventually reimbursing the client with money that appears to have come from the bank account of another unrelated party.
The SEC’s complaint names two relief defendants in order to recover client assets now in their possession:
Diane Passage — Starr’s wife with whom he has a joint bank account.
Colcave LLC — An entity through which Starr purchased the apartment.
The SEC’s complaint charges each of the three defendants with violations of Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and, further, charges Starr Investment Advisors with violations of Section 206(4) of the Advisers Act and Rule 206(4)-2(a)(1) thereunder. In addition to the emergency relief, the SEC’s complaint seeks permanent injunctions barring future violations of the charged provisions of the federal securities laws, disgorgement of the defendants’ and relief defendants’ ill-gotten gains plus pre-judgment interest, and financial penalties from the defendants.”
With all the fraud charges the SEC actually files you hear of almost no criminal follow-up by the FBI or any authority that could put a few of the bad guys behind bars for at least the summer. At the very least they should have to wear a T-shirt for a month that says “I’m A Wall Street Fraudster”.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
TWO SHORT SELLERS FOUND TO HAVE VIOLATED THE RULES
The SEC has caught two more individuals that were illegally shorting stocks. This is the first enforcement actions brought under rule 105. Rule 105 is meant to help stop the malicious market manipulations which has caused harm to the markets and has driven many retail (individual) investors away. Short selling when used as a hedge against sharp losses is a good thing. Short selling as a method of gambling is a dangerous thing to do for the short seller. The only time it is not dangerous is if the short seller has taken his own risk from the gamble via manipulating the market so that the stock will go down. It is like playing with a loaded deck of cards and that is perhaps a greater threat to capitalism than communism, fascism or any other ism.
The following is an excerpt from the SEC internet site. The SEC is at least finding some of the miscreants. It is too bad The Department of Justice does not take a keener interest in what may be the greatest threat to our national survival since WWII.
“Washington, D.C., May 11, 2010 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged two Boca Raton, Fla., residents for engaging in illegal short selling of securities in advance of participating in numerous secondary offerings to make illicit profits.
These mark the first enforcement actions brought by the SEC under Rule 105 of Regulation M against individuals with no securities industry background. Rule 105 helps prevent abusive short selling and market manipulation by ensuring that offering prices are set by natural forces of supply and demand for the securities in a secondary offering rather than by manipulative activity.
In separate orders issued by the Commission, Peter G. Grabler was charged with repeatedly violating Rule 105 over a period of more than two years for gains of $636,123. Leonard Adams was charged with similarly violating Rule 105 for gains of $331,387. According to the orders, Grabler and Adams engaged in a strategy of participating in numerous secondary offerings of stock in public companies in order to improve their access to initial public offerings underwritten by the same broker-dealers through which they participated in the secondary offerings.
Grabler and Adams, who both lived in Massachusetts during the period of the wrongdoing, agreed to pay a combined total of more than $1.5 million to settle the SEC's charges.
"Rule 105 applies just as much to individuals trading in their own accounts as it does to investment advisers and their related funds, which have been the subject of prior SEC enforcement actions," said David P. Bergers, Director of the SEC's Boston Regional Office. "Grabler and Adams engaged in a trading strategy that by its very nature violates the SEC's rules."
Short selling ahead of offerings can reduce the proceeds received by public companies and their shareholders by artificially depressing the market price shortly before the company prices its offering. The SEC amended Rule 105 effective October 2007 to prevent this trading practice known as "shorting into the deal." The revised rule generally prohibits the purchase of offering shares by any person who sold short the same securities within five business days before the pricing of the offering.
According to the SEC's orders, Grabler engaged in transactions prohibited by Rule 105 on at least 119 occasions between February 2006 and November 2008, involving secondary offerings by at least 102 issuers. Adams engaged in illegal transactions on at least 94 occasions between March 2006 and November 2008, involving secondary offerings by at least 86 issuers. The SEC found that Grabler opened or controlled at least 52 brokerage accounts at more than a dozen broker-dealers and that Adams opened or controlled at least 32 brokerages accounts also at more than a dozen broker-dealers.
In settling the SEC's charges without admitting or denying the SEC's findings, Grabler and Adams separately consented to cease and desist from violating Rule 105. Grabler will pay more than $988,000 to settle the SEC's charges, and Adams will pay more than $514,000”
Well, the SEC has caught and fined more crooks. As a long time investor in securities and commodities I have seen a lot of market manipulation. In this case the criminals were stealing a relative small amount of money but, they did get a just fine and perhaps they should get some criminal charges brought against them but unfortunately, the SEC cannot try people and put them away.
One thing that should be noted in this case is how much trouble a couple of guys can cause through illegal short sales. It would be good if the SEC would look into a lot of the shenanigans that went on in the 2007-2008 melt down. Several major brokerages have been rumored to have made a tremendous fortune shorting stocks so far down that the underlying businesses could not get loans to stay in business. Some of these short sellers may have been such large institutions that they created the short selling market for these stocks which wiped a lot of retail investors out and forced good companies to lay off employees. The aforesaid happens if the collapsing price of a stock of a business causes that business to have problems getting loans to fund day to day operations.
The following is an excerpt from the SEC internet site. The SEC is at least finding some of the miscreants. It is too bad The Department of Justice does not take a keener interest in what may be the greatest threat to our national survival since WWII.
“Washington, D.C., May 11, 2010 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged two Boca Raton, Fla., residents for engaging in illegal short selling of securities in advance of participating in numerous secondary offerings to make illicit profits.
These mark the first enforcement actions brought by the SEC under Rule 105 of Regulation M against individuals with no securities industry background. Rule 105 helps prevent abusive short selling and market manipulation by ensuring that offering prices are set by natural forces of supply and demand for the securities in a secondary offering rather than by manipulative activity.
In separate orders issued by the Commission, Peter G. Grabler was charged with repeatedly violating Rule 105 over a period of more than two years for gains of $636,123. Leonard Adams was charged with similarly violating Rule 105 for gains of $331,387. According to the orders, Grabler and Adams engaged in a strategy of participating in numerous secondary offerings of stock in public companies in order to improve their access to initial public offerings underwritten by the same broker-dealers through which they participated in the secondary offerings.
Grabler and Adams, who both lived in Massachusetts during the period of the wrongdoing, agreed to pay a combined total of more than $1.5 million to settle the SEC's charges.
"Rule 105 applies just as much to individuals trading in their own accounts as it does to investment advisers and their related funds, which have been the subject of prior SEC enforcement actions," said David P. Bergers, Director of the SEC's Boston Regional Office. "Grabler and Adams engaged in a trading strategy that by its very nature violates the SEC's rules."
Short selling ahead of offerings can reduce the proceeds received by public companies and their shareholders by artificially depressing the market price shortly before the company prices its offering. The SEC amended Rule 105 effective October 2007 to prevent this trading practice known as "shorting into the deal." The revised rule generally prohibits the purchase of offering shares by any person who sold short the same securities within five business days before the pricing of the offering.
According to the SEC's orders, Grabler engaged in transactions prohibited by Rule 105 on at least 119 occasions between February 2006 and November 2008, involving secondary offerings by at least 102 issuers. Adams engaged in illegal transactions on at least 94 occasions between March 2006 and November 2008, involving secondary offerings by at least 86 issuers. The SEC found that Grabler opened or controlled at least 52 brokerage accounts at more than a dozen broker-dealers and that Adams opened or controlled at least 32 brokerages accounts also at more than a dozen broker-dealers.
In settling the SEC's charges without admitting or denying the SEC's findings, Grabler and Adams separately consented to cease and desist from violating Rule 105. Grabler will pay more than $988,000 to settle the SEC's charges, and Adams will pay more than $514,000”
Well, the SEC has caught and fined more crooks. As a long time investor in securities and commodities I have seen a lot of market manipulation. In this case the criminals were stealing a relative small amount of money but, they did get a just fine and perhaps they should get some criminal charges brought against them but unfortunately, the SEC cannot try people and put them away.
One thing that should be noted in this case is how much trouble a couple of guys can cause through illegal short sales. It would be good if the SEC would look into a lot of the shenanigans that went on in the 2007-2008 melt down. Several major brokerages have been rumored to have made a tremendous fortune shorting stocks so far down that the underlying businesses could not get loans to stay in business. Some of these short sellers may have been such large institutions that they created the short selling market for these stocks which wiped a lot of retail investors out and forced good companies to lay off employees. The aforesaid happens if the collapsing price of a stock of a business causes that business to have problems getting loans to fund day to day operations.
Friday, April 16, 2010
GOLDMAN SACHS CHARGED WITH FRAUD BY THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Goldman Sachs has been charged with fraud by the SEC. The Dow 30 Industrial Index fell by up to 150 points when the fraud was disclosed today. The following is an excerpt from the press release given by the Securities and exchange commission:
"SEC Charges Goldman Sachs With Fraud in Structuring and Marketing of CDO Tied to Subprime Mortgages
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
2010-59
Washington, D.C., April 16, 2010 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged Goldman, Sachs & Co. and one of its vice presidents for defrauding investors by misstating and omitting key facts about a financial product tied to subprime mortgages as the U.S. housing market was beginning to falter.
Additional Materials
Litigation Release No. 21489
SEC Complaint
The SEC alleges that Goldman Sachs structured and marketed a synthetic collateralized debt obligation (CDO) that hinged on the performance of subprime residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS). Goldman Sachs failed to disclose to investors vital information about the CDO, in particular the role that a major hedge fund played in the portfolio selection process and the fact that the hedge fund had taken a short position against the CDO.
"The product was new and complex but the deception and conflicts are old and simple," said Robert Khuzami, Director of the Division of Enforcement. "Goldman wrongly permitted a client that was betting against the mortgage market to heavily influence which mortgage securities to include in an investment portfolio, while telling other investors that the securities were selected by an independent, objective third party."
Kenneth Lench, Chief of the SEC's Structured and New Products Unit, added, "The SEC continues to investigate the practices of investment banks and others involved in the securitization of complex financial products tied to the U.S. housing market as it was beginning to show signs of distress."
The SEC alleges that one of the world's largest hedge funds, Paulson & Co., paid Goldman Sachs to structure a transaction in which Paulson & Co. could take short positions against mortgage securities chosen by Paulson & Co. based on a belief that the securities would experience credit events.
According to the SEC's complaint, filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the marketing materials for the CDO known as ABACUS 2007-AC1 (ABACUS) all represented that the RMBS portfolio underlying the CDO was selected by ACA Management LLC (ACA), a third party with expertise in analyzing credit risk in RMBS. The SEC alleges that undisclosed in the marketing materials and unbeknownst to investors, the Paulson & Co. hedge fund, which was poised to benefit if the RMBS defaulted, played a significant role in selecting which RMBS should make up the portfolio.
The SEC's complaint alleges that after participating in the portfolio selection, Paulson & Co. effectively shorted the RMBS portfolio it helped select by entering into credit default swaps (CDS) with Goldman Sachs to buy protection on specific layers of the ABACUS capital structure. Given that financial short interest, Paulson & Co. had an economic incentive to select RMBS that it expected to experience credit events in the near future. Goldman Sachs did not disclose Paulson & Co.'s short position or its role in the collateral selection process in the term sheet, flip book, offering memorandum, or other marketing materials provided to investors.
The SEC alleges that Goldman Sachs Vice President Fabrice Tourre was principally responsible for ABACUS 2007-AC1. Tourre structured the transaction, prepared the marketing materials, and communicated directly with investors. Tourre allegedly knew of Paulson & Co.'s undisclosed short interest and role in the collateral selection process. In addition, he misled ACA into believing that Paulson & Co. invested approximately $200 million in the equity of ABACUS, indicating that Paulson & Co.'s interests in the collateral selection process were closely aligned with ACA's interests. In reality, however, their interests were sharply conflicting.
According to the SEC's complaint, the deal closed on April 26, 2007, and Paulson & Co. paid Goldman Sachs approximately $15 million for structuring and marketing ABACUS. By Oct. 24, 2007, 83 percent of the RMBS in the ABACUS portfolio had been downgraded and 17 percent were on negative watch. By Jan. 29, 2008, 99 percent of the portfolio had been downgraded.
Investors in the liabilities of ABACUS are alleged to have lost more than $1 billion.
The SEC's complaint charges Goldman Sachs and Tourre with violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Exchange Act Rule 10b-5. The Commission seeks injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits, prejudgment interest, and financial penalties."
The SEC can only assess civil liabilities however, it is unclear as to whether or not the Department of Justice or the Attorney General of the State of New York will pursue criminal charges.
"SEC Charges Goldman Sachs With Fraud in Structuring and Marketing of CDO Tied to Subprime Mortgages
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
2010-59
Washington, D.C., April 16, 2010 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged Goldman, Sachs & Co. and one of its vice presidents for defrauding investors by misstating and omitting key facts about a financial product tied to subprime mortgages as the U.S. housing market was beginning to falter.
Additional Materials
Litigation Release No. 21489
SEC Complaint
The SEC alleges that Goldman Sachs structured and marketed a synthetic collateralized debt obligation (CDO) that hinged on the performance of subprime residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS). Goldman Sachs failed to disclose to investors vital information about the CDO, in particular the role that a major hedge fund played in the portfolio selection process and the fact that the hedge fund had taken a short position against the CDO.
"The product was new and complex but the deception and conflicts are old and simple," said Robert Khuzami, Director of the Division of Enforcement. "Goldman wrongly permitted a client that was betting against the mortgage market to heavily influence which mortgage securities to include in an investment portfolio, while telling other investors that the securities were selected by an independent, objective third party."
Kenneth Lench, Chief of the SEC's Structured and New Products Unit, added, "The SEC continues to investigate the practices of investment banks and others involved in the securitization of complex financial products tied to the U.S. housing market as it was beginning to show signs of distress."
The SEC alleges that one of the world's largest hedge funds, Paulson & Co., paid Goldman Sachs to structure a transaction in which Paulson & Co. could take short positions against mortgage securities chosen by Paulson & Co. based on a belief that the securities would experience credit events.
According to the SEC's complaint, filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the marketing materials for the CDO known as ABACUS 2007-AC1 (ABACUS) all represented that the RMBS portfolio underlying the CDO was selected by ACA Management LLC (ACA), a third party with expertise in analyzing credit risk in RMBS. The SEC alleges that undisclosed in the marketing materials and unbeknownst to investors, the Paulson & Co. hedge fund, which was poised to benefit if the RMBS defaulted, played a significant role in selecting which RMBS should make up the portfolio.
The SEC's complaint alleges that after participating in the portfolio selection, Paulson & Co. effectively shorted the RMBS portfolio it helped select by entering into credit default swaps (CDS) with Goldman Sachs to buy protection on specific layers of the ABACUS capital structure. Given that financial short interest, Paulson & Co. had an economic incentive to select RMBS that it expected to experience credit events in the near future. Goldman Sachs did not disclose Paulson & Co.'s short position or its role in the collateral selection process in the term sheet, flip book, offering memorandum, or other marketing materials provided to investors.
The SEC alleges that Goldman Sachs Vice President Fabrice Tourre was principally responsible for ABACUS 2007-AC1. Tourre structured the transaction, prepared the marketing materials, and communicated directly with investors. Tourre allegedly knew of Paulson & Co.'s undisclosed short interest and role in the collateral selection process. In addition, he misled ACA into believing that Paulson & Co. invested approximately $200 million in the equity of ABACUS, indicating that Paulson & Co.'s interests in the collateral selection process were closely aligned with ACA's interests. In reality, however, their interests were sharply conflicting.
According to the SEC's complaint, the deal closed on April 26, 2007, and Paulson & Co. paid Goldman Sachs approximately $15 million for structuring and marketing ABACUS. By Oct. 24, 2007, 83 percent of the RMBS in the ABACUS portfolio had been downgraded and 17 percent were on negative watch. By Jan. 29, 2008, 99 percent of the portfolio had been downgraded.
Investors in the liabilities of ABACUS are alleged to have lost more than $1 billion.
The SEC's complaint charges Goldman Sachs and Tourre with violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Exchange Act Rule 10b-5. The Commission seeks injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits, prejudgment interest, and financial penalties."
The SEC can only assess civil liabilities however, it is unclear as to whether or not the Department of Justice or the Attorney General of the State of New York will pursue criminal charges.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
FLASH ORDERS: THE WAY INVESTORS WERE BEAT
The Securities and Exchange Commission voted unanimously to ban flash orders. According to the SEC filing "A flash allows a person who has not publicly displayed a quote to see orders less than a second before the public is given an opportunity to trade with those orders. Investors who have access only to information displayed as public quotes may be harmed if market participants are able to flash orders and avoid the need to make the order publicly available."
"Flash orders may create a two-tiered market by allowing only selected participants to access information about the best available prices for listed securities," said SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro. "These flash orders provide a momentary head-start in the trading arena that can produce inequities in the markets and create disincentives to display quotes."
Flash orders are one of the many ways that wealthy investors have been taking individual investors and traders to the cleaners for years. Up until now, politicians and agencies created to oversea criminal activities on WallStreet, have turned a blind eye to practices such as these. This is a sad time in America when a few wealthy bankers on Wallstreet can manipulate markets with the blessing of the government. Even casino's are better regulated. The very existence of the SEC has for decades gave people the confidence to invest their hard earned savings. The SEC has just been operating as a co-conspirator in the Wallstreet confidence game.
At least finally, the SEC is doing it's job but, will people trust them in the future? Obviously, it would be shear ignorance to trust the Wallstreet banking elite.
The following is more detail regarding their decision on flash orders, released on the SEC web site:
"The Commission today voted unanimously to propose the elimination of the flash order exception from Rule 602. If adopted, the proposed amendment would effectively prohibit all markets - including equity exchanges, options exchanges, and alternative trading systems - from displaying marketable flash orders.
In its proposal, the Commission is seeking public comment and data on a broad range of issues relating to flash orders, including the costs and benefits associated with the proposal. It also seeks comment on whether the use of flash orders in the options markets should be evaluated differently than their use in the equity markets.
* * *
Public comments on today's proposal must be received by the Commission within 60 days after its publication in the Federal Register."
T
"Flash orders may create a two-tiered market by allowing only selected participants to access information about the best available prices for listed securities," said SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro. "These flash orders provide a momentary head-start in the trading arena that can produce inequities in the markets and create disincentives to display quotes."
Flash orders are one of the many ways that wealthy investors have been taking individual investors and traders to the cleaners for years. Up until now, politicians and agencies created to oversea criminal activities on WallStreet, have turned a blind eye to practices such as these. This is a sad time in America when a few wealthy bankers on Wallstreet can manipulate markets with the blessing of the government. Even casino's are better regulated. The very existence of the SEC has for decades gave people the confidence to invest their hard earned savings. The SEC has just been operating as a co-conspirator in the Wallstreet confidence game.
At least finally, the SEC is doing it's job but, will people trust them in the future? Obviously, it would be shear ignorance to trust the Wallstreet banking elite.
The following is more detail regarding their decision on flash orders, released on the SEC web site:
"The Commission today voted unanimously to propose the elimination of the flash order exception from Rule 602. If adopted, the proposed amendment would effectively prohibit all markets - including equity exchanges, options exchanges, and alternative trading systems - from displaying marketable flash orders.
In its proposal, the Commission is seeking public comment and data on a broad range of issues relating to flash orders, including the costs and benefits associated with the proposal. It also seeks comment on whether the use of flash orders in the options markets should be evaluated differently than their use in the equity markets.
* * *
Public comments on today's proposal must be received by the Commission within 60 days after its publication in the Federal Register."
T
Sunday, March 28, 2010
SEC CONTINUES TO INVESTIGATE FRAUD
The following information was presented on the SEC website. The information is regarding a case of securities fraud. The SEC is bringing charges of securities fraud against family members who managed a hedge fund based in Florida. This is a follow-up to the charges brought against Arthur G. Nadel last year.
“Washington, D.C., Jan. 11, 2010 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged two Sarasota, Fla.-based investment advisers with securities fraud for misleading investors about the financial condition of three hedge funds they managed, and misrepresenting that they controlled the funds' investment and trading activities when in fact they were being handled by Arthur G. Nadel.
The SEC alleges that Neil V. Moody and his son, Christopher D. Moody, distributed offering materials, account statements, and newsletters to investors that misrepresented the hedge funds' historical investment returns and overstated their asset values by as much as $160 million. The Moody’s based their materials on grossly overstated performance numbers that Nadel created and provided to them. The Moodys failed to independently verify the accuracy of the figures despite multiple red flags, and relied exclusively on Nadel’s inaccurate information when communicating with investors.
The SEC last year obtained an emergency court order to freeze his assets.
"The Moodys led investors to believe that they were faithfully managing funds invested with them," said Glenn S. Gordon, Associate Director of the SEC’s Miami Regional Office. "Instead, they abdicated their responsibilities to investors and ignored warning signs that should have alerted them to the fraud that was occurring all around them."
According to the SEC's complaint, filed in federal court in Tampa, Fla., Neil and Christopher Moody disseminated misleading materials to investors about their hedge funds Valhalla Investment Partners L.P., Viking IRA Fund LLC, and Viking Fund LLC from at least 2003 through December 2008.
The SEC's complaint further alleges that the Moodys misled investors regarding their role in managing the assets of the three hedge funds by claiming that they controlled all of the investment and trading decisions. In truth, under an arrangement that the Moodys had with Nadel, he controlled nearly all of the funds’ investment and trading activities with no meaningful supervision or oversight by the Moodys.
In its complaint against the Moodys, the SEC seeks permanent injunctions, financial penalties, and disgorgement of illegal gains. Without admitting or denying the SEC's allegations, the Moodys have consented to permanent injunctions against future securities fraud violations. The Moodys also consented to the entry of a Commission order that will bar them for five years from associating with any investment adviser.”
“Washington, D.C., Jan. 11, 2010 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged two Sarasota, Fla.-based investment advisers with securities fraud for misleading investors about the financial condition of three hedge funds they managed, and misrepresenting that they controlled the funds' investment and trading activities when in fact they were being handled by Arthur G. Nadel.
The SEC alleges that Neil V. Moody and his son, Christopher D. Moody, distributed offering materials, account statements, and newsletters to investors that misrepresented the hedge funds' historical investment returns and overstated their asset values by as much as $160 million. The Moody’s based their materials on grossly overstated performance numbers that Nadel created and provided to them. The Moodys failed to independently verify the accuracy of the figures despite multiple red flags, and relied exclusively on Nadel’s inaccurate information when communicating with investors.
The SEC last year obtained an emergency court order to freeze his assets.
"The Moodys led investors to believe that they were faithfully managing funds invested with them," said Glenn S. Gordon, Associate Director of the SEC’s Miami Regional Office. "Instead, they abdicated their responsibilities to investors and ignored warning signs that should have alerted them to the fraud that was occurring all around them."
According to the SEC's complaint, filed in federal court in Tampa, Fla., Neil and Christopher Moody disseminated misleading materials to investors about their hedge funds Valhalla Investment Partners L.P., Viking IRA Fund LLC, and Viking Fund LLC from at least 2003 through December 2008.
The SEC's complaint further alleges that the Moodys misled investors regarding their role in managing the assets of the three hedge funds by claiming that they controlled all of the investment and trading decisions. In truth, under an arrangement that the Moodys had with Nadel, he controlled nearly all of the funds’ investment and trading activities with no meaningful supervision or oversight by the Moodys.
In its complaint against the Moodys, the SEC seeks permanent injunctions, financial penalties, and disgorgement of illegal gains. Without admitting or denying the SEC's allegations, the Moodys have consented to permanent injunctions against future securities fraud violations. The Moodys also consented to the entry of a Commission order that will bar them for five years from associating with any investment adviser.”
Saturday, March 27, 2010
GETTING SEMINAR PONZIED BY FAKE ESTATE PLANNERS
Below is an excerpt from the SEC web site which outlines an alleged Ponzi Scheme committed by some very smooth operators. This story has the real smell of a con complete wining and dining potential victims and with lying about investments and even about having an MBA. Please read the following excerpt regarding the Estate Planning Seminar Con:
"SEC Halts Ponzi Scheme Preying on Retirees Attending Estate Planning Seminars
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
2010-37
Washington, D.C., March 10, 2010 — The Securities and Exchange Commission has obtained an emergency court order to shut down a Ponzi scheme targeting retirees in California and Illinois by inviting them to estate planning seminars and later coaxing them to buy promissory notes for purported Turkish investments.
The SEC alleges that USA Retirement Management Services (USARMS) and managing partners Francois E. Durmaz and Robert C. Pribilski mass-mailed promotional materials to prospective investors and invited them to estate planning seminars held at country clubs and banquet halls. They gained retirees' confidence in follow-up meetings and portrayed themselves as educated and experienced in foreign investments specifically tailored to the needs of seniors. Durmaz and Pribilski then pitched what they represented as safe, guaranteed investments in "Turkish Eurobonds" through the purchase of USARMS promissory notes that would earn annual returns between 8 and 11 percent.
The SEC alleges that USARMS raised at least $20 million from more than 120 investors, but did not actually invest the money in Turkish Eurobonds as promised. Instead, returns were paid to earlier investors with funds received from new investors in Ponzi-like fashion. Durmaz and Pribilski further misused investor funds to finance their other businesses and purchase such things as luxury automobiles, homes, vacations, and web-based pornography. They also wired investor money into bank accounts belonging to individuals living in Turkey who are named as relief defendants in the SEC's case.
"Durmaz and Pribilski used estate planning seminars as a means to elicit investor trust and lure retirees into investing in a classic Ponzi scheme," said Rosalind R. Tyson, Director of the SEC's Los Angeles Regional Office.
USARMS and its securities are not registered with the SEC. USARMS is incorporated in Illinois and has offices in Los Angeles; Irvine, Calif.; and Oakbrook Terrace, Ill. Durmaz resides in Los Angeles and Streamwood, Ill., and Pribilski resides in Lisle, Ill. Neither of them is registered with the SEC in any capacity nor do they hold any securities licenses.
According to the SEC's complaint, filed on March 9 in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Durmaz and other USARMS employees provided seminar attendees a general presentation on estate planning and later sent them a letter inviting them to their offices for a personal consultation "to explain the amazing steps you must take when you set up a Living Trust or Will."
The SEC alleges that once seminar attendees went to their estate planning appointments, Durmaz examined their personal financial information and told prospective investors that they had issued hundreds of millions of dollars in USARMS promissory notes. In addition, Durmaz falsely claimed that he held a Masters of Business Administration (MBA) and was a Certified Senior Advisor (CSA). Thus, prospective investors were led to believe that Durmaz was educated and experienced in investments specifically tailored to the needs of seniors and retirees."
The above allegations of the SEC demonstrates again how widespread fraud exists all over the investment community. Ponzi schemes have been around for generations but, crooks seem to love to use them over and over again.
"SEC Halts Ponzi Scheme Preying on Retirees Attending Estate Planning Seminars
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
2010-37
Washington, D.C., March 10, 2010 — The Securities and Exchange Commission has obtained an emergency court order to shut down a Ponzi scheme targeting retirees in California and Illinois by inviting them to estate planning seminars and later coaxing them to buy promissory notes for purported Turkish investments.
The SEC alleges that USA Retirement Management Services (USARMS) and managing partners Francois E. Durmaz and Robert C. Pribilski mass-mailed promotional materials to prospective investors and invited them to estate planning seminars held at country clubs and banquet halls. They gained retirees' confidence in follow-up meetings and portrayed themselves as educated and experienced in foreign investments specifically tailored to the needs of seniors. Durmaz and Pribilski then pitched what they represented as safe, guaranteed investments in "Turkish Eurobonds" through the purchase of USARMS promissory notes that would earn annual returns between 8 and 11 percent.
The SEC alleges that USARMS raised at least $20 million from more than 120 investors, but did not actually invest the money in Turkish Eurobonds as promised. Instead, returns were paid to earlier investors with funds received from new investors in Ponzi-like fashion. Durmaz and Pribilski further misused investor funds to finance their other businesses and purchase such things as luxury automobiles, homes, vacations, and web-based pornography. They also wired investor money into bank accounts belonging to individuals living in Turkey who are named as relief defendants in the SEC's case.
"Durmaz and Pribilski used estate planning seminars as a means to elicit investor trust and lure retirees into investing in a classic Ponzi scheme," said Rosalind R. Tyson, Director of the SEC's Los Angeles Regional Office.
USARMS and its securities are not registered with the SEC. USARMS is incorporated in Illinois and has offices in Los Angeles; Irvine, Calif.; and Oakbrook Terrace, Ill. Durmaz resides in Los Angeles and Streamwood, Ill., and Pribilski resides in Lisle, Ill. Neither of them is registered with the SEC in any capacity nor do they hold any securities licenses.
According to the SEC's complaint, filed on March 9 in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Durmaz and other USARMS employees provided seminar attendees a general presentation on estate planning and later sent them a letter inviting them to their offices for a personal consultation "to explain the amazing steps you must take when you set up a Living Trust or Will."
The SEC alleges that once seminar attendees went to their estate planning appointments, Durmaz examined their personal financial information and told prospective investors that they had issued hundreds of millions of dollars in USARMS promissory notes. In addition, Durmaz falsely claimed that he held a Masters of Business Administration (MBA) and was a Certified Senior Advisor (CSA). Thus, prospective investors were led to believe that Durmaz was educated and experienced in investments specifically tailored to the needs of seniors and retirees."
The above allegations of the SEC demonstrates again how widespread fraud exists all over the investment community. Ponzi schemes have been around for generations but, crooks seem to love to use them over and over again.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
EXECUTIVES CHARGED WITH ENRICHING CEO WITH PERKS
The following excerpt of information was gathered from the SEC webpage. It shows how easily executives can drain a company of money leaving shareholders, employees and creditors to suffer great losses. Please read the following excerpt:
2010-39
Washington, D.C., March 15, 2010 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged three former senior executives and a former director of an Omaha-based database compilation company for their roles in a scheme in which the CEO funneled illegal compensation to himself in the form of perks worth millions of dollars.
The SEC alleges that Vinod Gupta, the former CEO and Chairman of infoUSA Inc. and infoGROUP Inc. (Info), fraudulently used corporate funds to pay almost $9.5 million in personal expenses to support his lavish lifestyle. He additionally caused the company to enter into $9.3 million of undisclosed business transactions between Info and other companies in which he had a personal stake.
The SEC also charged the former chairman of Info's audit committee, Vasant H. Raval, and two of the company's former chief financial officers, Rajnish K. Das and Stormy L. Dean, for enabling Gupta to carry out the scheme.
Gupta stole millions of dollars from Info shareholders by treating the company like it was his personal ATM," said Robert Khuzami, Director of the SEC's Division of Enforcement. "Other corporate officers also abused their positions of trust by looking the other way instead of standing up for investors and bringing the scheme to a halt."
Donald M. Hoerl, Director of the SEC's Denver Regional Office, added, "Officers and directors must ensure that shareholders receive accurate and complete disclosure of all compensation paid to executives. Raval, as chairman of the audit committee, neglected these duties and allowed the money to flow to Gupta unbeknownst to investors."
The SEC's complaints, filed in federal district court in Nebraska, allege that from 2003 to 2007, Gupta improperly used corporate funds for more than $3 million worth of personal jet travel for himself, family, and friends to such destinations as South Africa, Italy, and Cancun. He also used investor money to pay $2.8 million in expenses related to his yacht; $1.3 million in personal credit card expenses; and other costs associated with 28 club memberships, 20 automobiles, homes around the country, and three personal life insurance policies. The SEC also alleges that Gupta failed to inform Info's other board members of the material fact that he had purchased shares of an Info acquisition target for his own ill-gotten financial benefit.
The SEC alleges that Raval failed to respond appropriately to various red flags concerning Gupta's expenses and Info's related party transactions with Gupta's other entities. Two Info internal auditors raised concerns to Raval that Gupta was submitting requests for reimbursement of personal expenses, yet Raval failed to take meaningful action to further investigate the matter and he omitted critical facts in a report to the board concerning Gupta's expenses.
The SEC further alleges that Das and Dean allowed Gupta to support his lavish lifestyle by rubber-stamping hundreds of his expense reimbursement requests. Das and Dean approved Gupta's expense reimbursement requests despite the fact that the requests lacked sufficient explanation of business purpose and supporting documentation, even in the face of concerns raised by several Info employees. Das and Dean also signed management representation letters to Info's outside auditor falsely representing that all related party transactions with Gupta's entities had been properly recorded and disclosed in Info's financial statements.
Gupta, Raval, and Info agreed to settle the SEC's charges without admitting or denying the allegations against them.
Gupta agreed to pay disgorgement of $4,045,000, prejudgment interest of $1,145,400, and a penalty of $2,240,700. He consented to an order barring him from serving as an officer or director of a public company, and placing restrictions on the voting of his Info common stock. Gupta consented to a final judgment enjoining him from violations of Sections 10(b), 13(b)(5), and 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 10b-5, 13a-14, 13b2-1, 13b2-2, 14a-3, and 14a-9 and from aiding and abetting Info's violations of Exchange Act Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A), and 13(b)(2)(B) and Rules 13a-1, 13a-13, and 12b-20.
Raval agreed to pay a $50,000 penalty and consented to an order barring him from serving as an officer or director of a public company for five years. He also consented to a final judgment enjoining him from violations of Exchange Act Sections 10(b) and 14(a) and Rules 10b-5, 14a-3, and 14a-9, and from aiding and abetting Info's violations of Exchange Act Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A), and 13(b)(2)(B) and Rules 12b-20 and 13a-1.
Info consented to the issuance of an Order Instituting Cease-and-Desist Proceedings Pursuant to Section 21C of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Making Findings, and Imposing a Cease-and-Desist Order without admitting or denying any of the findings in the SEC's order. The Order orders Info to cease and desist from committing or causing any violations and any future violations of Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A), 13(b)(2)(B), and 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, 13a-13, 14a-3, and 14a-9.
The SEC's case against Das and Dean is ongoing. They are charged with violating Exchange Act Sections 10(b), 13(b)(5), and 14(a), and Rules 10b-5, 13a-14, 13b2-1, 13b2-2, 14a-3, and 14a-9, and for aiding and abetting Info's violations of Exchange Act Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A), and 13(b)(2)(B), and Rules 12b-20 and 13a-1. Additionally, Das is charged with violating Exchange Act Rule 13a-13. The Commission's complaint seeks permanent injunctions, financial penalties, prejudgment interest, and an officer and director bar against both defendants.
http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2010/2010-39.htm
2010-39
Washington, D.C., March 15, 2010 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged three former senior executives and a former director of an Omaha-based database compilation company for their roles in a scheme in which the CEO funneled illegal compensation to himself in the form of perks worth millions of dollars.
The SEC alleges that Vinod Gupta, the former CEO and Chairman of infoUSA Inc. and infoGROUP Inc. (Info), fraudulently used corporate funds to pay almost $9.5 million in personal expenses to support his lavish lifestyle. He additionally caused the company to enter into $9.3 million of undisclosed business transactions between Info and other companies in which he had a personal stake.
The SEC also charged the former chairman of Info's audit committee, Vasant H. Raval, and two of the company's former chief financial officers, Rajnish K. Das and Stormy L. Dean, for enabling Gupta to carry out the scheme.
Gupta stole millions of dollars from Info shareholders by treating the company like it was his personal ATM," said Robert Khuzami, Director of the SEC's Division of Enforcement. "Other corporate officers also abused their positions of trust by looking the other way instead of standing up for investors and bringing the scheme to a halt."
Donald M. Hoerl, Director of the SEC's Denver Regional Office, added, "Officers and directors must ensure that shareholders receive accurate and complete disclosure of all compensation paid to executives. Raval, as chairman of the audit committee, neglected these duties and allowed the money to flow to Gupta unbeknownst to investors."
The SEC's complaints, filed in federal district court in Nebraska, allege that from 2003 to 2007, Gupta improperly used corporate funds for more than $3 million worth of personal jet travel for himself, family, and friends to such destinations as South Africa, Italy, and Cancun. He also used investor money to pay $2.8 million in expenses related to his yacht; $1.3 million in personal credit card expenses; and other costs associated with 28 club memberships, 20 automobiles, homes around the country, and three personal life insurance policies. The SEC also alleges that Gupta failed to inform Info's other board members of the material fact that he had purchased shares of an Info acquisition target for his own ill-gotten financial benefit.
The SEC alleges that Raval failed to respond appropriately to various red flags concerning Gupta's expenses and Info's related party transactions with Gupta's other entities. Two Info internal auditors raised concerns to Raval that Gupta was submitting requests for reimbursement of personal expenses, yet Raval failed to take meaningful action to further investigate the matter and he omitted critical facts in a report to the board concerning Gupta's expenses.
The SEC further alleges that Das and Dean allowed Gupta to support his lavish lifestyle by rubber-stamping hundreds of his expense reimbursement requests. Das and Dean approved Gupta's expense reimbursement requests despite the fact that the requests lacked sufficient explanation of business purpose and supporting documentation, even in the face of concerns raised by several Info employees. Das and Dean also signed management representation letters to Info's outside auditor falsely representing that all related party transactions with Gupta's entities had been properly recorded and disclosed in Info's financial statements.
Gupta, Raval, and Info agreed to settle the SEC's charges without admitting or denying the allegations against them.
Gupta agreed to pay disgorgement of $4,045,000, prejudgment interest of $1,145,400, and a penalty of $2,240,700. He consented to an order barring him from serving as an officer or director of a public company, and placing restrictions on the voting of his Info common stock. Gupta consented to a final judgment enjoining him from violations of Sections 10(b), 13(b)(5), and 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 10b-5, 13a-14, 13b2-1, 13b2-2, 14a-3, and 14a-9 and from aiding and abetting Info's violations of Exchange Act Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A), and 13(b)(2)(B) and Rules 13a-1, 13a-13, and 12b-20.
Raval agreed to pay a $50,000 penalty and consented to an order barring him from serving as an officer or director of a public company for five years. He also consented to a final judgment enjoining him from violations of Exchange Act Sections 10(b) and 14(a) and Rules 10b-5, 14a-3, and 14a-9, and from aiding and abetting Info's violations of Exchange Act Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A), and 13(b)(2)(B) and Rules 12b-20 and 13a-1.
Info consented to the issuance of an Order Instituting Cease-and-Desist Proceedings Pursuant to Section 21C of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Making Findings, and Imposing a Cease-and-Desist Order without admitting or denying any of the findings in the SEC's order. The Order orders Info to cease and desist from committing or causing any violations and any future violations of Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A), 13(b)(2)(B), and 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, 13a-13, 14a-3, and 14a-9.
The SEC's case against Das and Dean is ongoing. They are charged with violating Exchange Act Sections 10(b), 13(b)(5), and 14(a), and Rules 10b-5, 13a-14, 13b2-1, 13b2-2, 14a-3, and 14a-9, and for aiding and abetting Info's violations of Exchange Act Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A), and 13(b)(2)(B), and Rules 12b-20 and 13a-1. Additionally, Das is charged with violating Exchange Act Rule 13a-13. The Commission's complaint seeks permanent injunctions, financial penalties, prejudgment interest, and an officer and director bar against both defendants.
http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2010/2010-39.htm
Sunday, February 28, 2010
CALIFORNIA TELECOM CO. CHARGED WITH BRIBERY
On Dec. 31, 2009, the SEC charged UTStarcom, with corrupton charges. The following was found on the SEC Governmental page. It seems that UTStarcom had a very lavish and intricate scheme for bribing officials in Asia. The Department of Justice was also involved with this case. The following is an exerpt from the SEC web page:
"Washington, D.C., Dec. 31, 2009 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged Alameda, Calif.-based telecommunications company UTStarcom, Inc. with violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) for authorizing millions of dollars in unlawful payments to foreign government officials in Asia.
UTStarcom agreed to settle the SEC's charges and pay a $1.5 million penalty among other remedies. In a related criminal case, the U.S. Department of Justice announced today that UTStarcom agreed to pay an additional $1.5 million fine.
"UTStarcom spent millions of dollars on illegal bribes to win and keep customers in Asia," said Marc J. Fagel, Director of the SEC's San Francisco Regional Office. "It is important for corporate America to recognize that resorting to these methods of boosting profits contributes to a culture of corruption that cannot be condoned under U.S. law."
The SEC's complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleges that UTStarcom's wholly-owned subsidiary in China paid nearly $7 million between 2002 and 2007 for hundreds of overseas trips by employees of Chinese government-controlled telecommunications companies that were customers of UTStarcom, purportedly to provide customer training. In reality, the trips were entirely or primarily for sightseeing.
The SEC further alleges that UTStarcom provided lavish gifts and all-expenses paid executive training programs in the U.S. for existing and potential foreign government customers in China and Thailand. UTStarcom also purported to hire individuals affiliated with foreign government customers to work in the U.S. and provided them with work visas, when in reality the individuals did no work for UTStarcom. According to the SEC's complaint, UTStarcom also made improper payments to sham consultants in China and Mongolia while knowing that they would pay bribes to foreign government officials.
The SEC's complaint charges UTStarcom with violations of the anti-bribery, books and records, and internal controls provisions of the FCPA. UTStarcom agreed, without admitting or denying the charges, to the entry of a permanent injunction against FCPA violations and to provide the SEC with annual FCPA compliance reports and certifications for four years, in addition to paying the $1.5 million penalty.
The SEC acknowledges the assistance of the Department of Justice during the investigation."
"Washington, D.C., Dec. 31, 2009 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged Alameda, Calif.-based telecommunications company UTStarcom, Inc. with violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) for authorizing millions of dollars in unlawful payments to foreign government officials in Asia.
UTStarcom agreed to settle the SEC's charges and pay a $1.5 million penalty among other remedies. In a related criminal case, the U.S. Department of Justice announced today that UTStarcom agreed to pay an additional $1.5 million fine.
"UTStarcom spent millions of dollars on illegal bribes to win and keep customers in Asia," said Marc J. Fagel, Director of the SEC's San Francisco Regional Office. "It is important for corporate America to recognize that resorting to these methods of boosting profits contributes to a culture of corruption that cannot be condoned under U.S. law."
The SEC's complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleges that UTStarcom's wholly-owned subsidiary in China paid nearly $7 million between 2002 and 2007 for hundreds of overseas trips by employees of Chinese government-controlled telecommunications companies that were customers of UTStarcom, purportedly to provide customer training. In reality, the trips were entirely or primarily for sightseeing.
The SEC further alleges that UTStarcom provided lavish gifts and all-expenses paid executive training programs in the U.S. for existing and potential foreign government customers in China and Thailand. UTStarcom also purported to hire individuals affiliated with foreign government customers to work in the U.S. and provided them with work visas, when in reality the individuals did no work for UTStarcom. According to the SEC's complaint, UTStarcom also made improper payments to sham consultants in China and Mongolia while knowing that they would pay bribes to foreign government officials.
The SEC's complaint charges UTStarcom with violations of the anti-bribery, books and records, and internal controls provisions of the FCPA. UTStarcom agreed, without admitting or denying the charges, to the entry of a permanent injunction against FCPA violations and to provide the SEC with annual FCPA compliance reports and certifications for four years, in addition to paying the $1.5 million penalty.
The SEC acknowledges the assistance of the Department of Justice during the investigation."
Saturday, February 28, 2009
SEC GETS TOUGH ON WALL STREET FRAUDSTERS
Following is the speech by the new Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman, Mary Schapiro. She wants to get tough on Wall Street. She will have a lot law makers who are in the pocket of Wall Street who, will fight her at every turn. An edited copy of her speech is included in this blog because unlike most Washington speeches, her speech is not too boring and is full of needed information. Because this is a speech to SEC employees, part of this speech was removed to better highlight the changes she wants to make to at least get some justice (revenge) for Americans who are being so devastated by trillionaires on Wall Street and their government stooges. This speech was lifted from the SEC web site where the speech can be read in its entirety:
Speech by SEC Chairman:
Address to Practising Law Institute's "SEC Speaks in 2009" Program
by
Chairman Mary L. Schapiro
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
February 6, 2009
I have been back at the Commission for less than two weeks, after a nearly 15-year hiatus. I am extremely proud to return to the agency that I know is so important to investors and our economy.
We must take our cues from the current environment. Trillions of dollars of wealth have been lost. Our economy is in recession. And investor confidence has been badly shaken. Middle-class families who were relying on that nest egg to send a son or daughter to college or for a secure retirement now don't know where to turn.
It is precisely during times like these that we need the SEC as the "investor's advocate." An SEC with the staff, the will, and the resources necessary to move with great urgency to:bring transparency and accountability to all corners of the marketplace,vigorously prosecute those who have broken the law and cheated investors, andmodernize our country's regulatory system to match the realities of today's global, interdependent markets.
As the current market crisis has unfolded, the SEC, along with the entire regulatory structure, has been put under a microscope. This crisis has exposed weaknesses and gaps in the regulatory system and areas where the SEC particularly must re-commit its resources and talents in order to restore investor confidence. We must help to restore that lost confidence — that is our challenge.
Success in this endeavor demands that we as an organization engage in serious self-evaluation. That means taking an honest look at everything we are doing and how we do it. I know there is so much being done right, but there is also much that can be done better. I learned long ago that one of the SEC's greatest strengths has been its ability to adapt to change, while never forgetting that it is the American people we are here to serve.
The challenges we face are historic. But they're not insurmountable. It will take determination, hard work, toughness, and above all, an unrelenting will to stand up for investors.
But make no mistake. Regulation is a two-way street. The "regulated" need not wait for a regulator's reforms, though they will come. At a time when investors are appalled at the ways of Wall Street, it is there that change must begin. A strong and reinvigorated SEC will be on the beat like never before to catch wrongdoers. But there needs to be a new era of responsibility on Wall Street and throughout our markets to ensure that wrongs don't occur in the first place. The sooner that Wall Street works to repair its own problems, the sooner investors will once again find the confidence to invest in what should be the finest markets in the world.
There is much we can do to accelerate that process, including giving shareholders a greater say on who serves on corporate boards, and how company executives are paid.
There is much to be accomplished, but this morning I'm here to describe how we will approach the challenges we face, and the actions we've already taken.
At my confirmation hearing, I emphasized the need for the SEC to move with the sense of urgency that investors demand — to be willing and able to move quickly, precisely, and decisively to take actions that will restore investor trust and confidence in our financial markets.
Investors are looking to the SEC to protect them. To do that well, we have to act swiftly to respond to market events, and that means we must be willing to change the way we do business.
Those who break the law and take advantage of investors need to know that they will face an unrelenting law enforcement agency in the SEC — an agency that will pursue them until the full force of the law is the sure, certain, and sole reward for their wrongdoing. No one should be heard credibly to question whether enforcement is a priority at the SEC. It is, and always will remain, a foundation of our mission.
As the first SEC Chairman, Joseph Kennedy, told the nation 75 years ago in explaining the agency's role, "The Commission will make war without quarter on any who sell securities by fraud or misrepresentation."
As a first, but significant, step in empowering our Enforcement staff, I am this week taking action to end the Commission's two-year "penalty pilot" experiment, which had required the Enforcement staff to obtain a special set of approvals from the Commission in cases involving civil monetary penalties for public companies as punishment for securities fraud.
In speaking to our Enforcement staff, I've been told that these special procedures have introduced significant delays into the process of bringing a corporate penalty case; discouraged staff from arguing for a penalty in a case that might deserve a penalty; and sometimes resulted in reductions in the size of penalties imposed.
At a time when the SEC needs to be deterring corporate wrongdoing, the "penalty pilot" sends the wrong message. The action I am taking to end the penalty pilot is designed to expedite the Commission's enforcement efforts to ensure that justice is swiftly served to those public companies who commit serious acts of securities fraud.
Another immediate change I am putting in place to bolster the SEC's enforcement program is to provide for more rapid approval of formal orders of investigation — the permission slips given out by the Commission that allow SEC staff to use the power of subpoenas to compel witness testimony and the production of documents. When I was a Commissioner, formal orders were routinely reviewed and approved within a couple of days by written approval of the Commission or by "duty officer" — a single Commissioner acting promptly and on behalf of the entire Commission.
Today, however, many formal orders of investigation are made subject to full review at a meeting of all five Commissioners, necessitating that they be placed on the calendar sometimes weeks in advance. In investigations that require use of subpoena power, time is always of the essence, and every additional day of delay can be costly. To ensure that subpoena power is available to SEC staff when needed, I've given direction for the agency to return to the prior policy of timely approval of formal orders by seriatim approval or where appropriate, by a single Commissioner acting as duty officer.
In addition to these immediate actions, I have also spent much of my first week and a half on the job in meetings with my fellow Commissioners and the agency's senior staff to discuss other ways in which we can reinvigorate the SEC's enforcement program, including improving the handling of tips and whistleblower complaints and focusing on areas where investors are most at risk. And I anticipate that we'll be making further improvements in the coming weeks and months to ensure swift and vigorous enforcement.
In deciding upon regulatory priorities, it is vital that the SEC re-engage with the people we serve: investors. The investor community — from the largest pension fund to the family who has saved in their 401(k) or 529 plan — needs to feel that they have someone on their side — that they can go to the SEC to seek redress, or to have their opinions heard.
To that end, we will form an Investor Advisory Committee to ensure that the Commission hears first hand about the issues most concerning to investors.
The crisis facing our capital markets will require aggressive and timely action to restore investor trust and confidence. To this end, allow me to highlight a few of the initiatives that I hope to pursue as priorities:
Improving the quality of credit ratings by addressing the inherent conflicts of interest credit rating agencies face as a result of their compensation models and limiting the impact of credit ratings on capital requirements of regulated financial institutions.
Reducing systemic risk to investors and markets by promoting — and regulating appropriately — centralized clearinghouses for credit default swaps.
Strengthening risk-based oversight of broker-dealers and investment advisers.
Improving the quality of audits for nonpublic broker-dealers and promoting the safe and sound custody of customer assets by any broker-dealer or investment adviser.
Seventy-five years after the SEC was founded, the Commission finds itself in a situation where, once again, it must play a critical role in reviving our markets, bolstering investor confidence, and rejuvenating our economy.
The American people want and expect us to update the regulatory system that has failed them — and to prevent the kinds of abuses that have contributed to the economic crisis we now face.
Even as we pursue these regulatory priorities, the SEC will also be working closely with Congress to ensure that legislative restructuring of our financial regulatory system will preserve and strengthen our commitment to transparency, accountability, disclosure, and most of all, investor protection.
I am under no illusion that this will be an easy job. There is a lot of work to be done — quickly and diligently — in the months ahead. I look forward to this challenge, to helping the millions of investors who rely on strong markets and a strong economy, and to working with the professionals at the SEC.
The above speech sounds like we will have a great improvment in the confidnece the American people feel for their government.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Home | Previous Page Modified: 02/06/2009
Speech by SEC Chairman:
Address to Practising Law Institute's "SEC Speaks in 2009" Program
by
Chairman Mary L. Schapiro
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
February 6, 2009
I have been back at the Commission for less than two weeks, after a nearly 15-year hiatus. I am extremely proud to return to the agency that I know is so important to investors and our economy.
We must take our cues from the current environment. Trillions of dollars of wealth have been lost. Our economy is in recession. And investor confidence has been badly shaken. Middle-class families who were relying on that nest egg to send a son or daughter to college or for a secure retirement now don't know where to turn.
It is precisely during times like these that we need the SEC as the "investor's advocate." An SEC with the staff, the will, and the resources necessary to move with great urgency to:bring transparency and accountability to all corners of the marketplace,vigorously prosecute those who have broken the law and cheated investors, andmodernize our country's regulatory system to match the realities of today's global, interdependent markets.
As the current market crisis has unfolded, the SEC, along with the entire regulatory structure, has been put under a microscope. This crisis has exposed weaknesses and gaps in the regulatory system and areas where the SEC particularly must re-commit its resources and talents in order to restore investor confidence. We must help to restore that lost confidence — that is our challenge.
Success in this endeavor demands that we as an organization engage in serious self-evaluation. That means taking an honest look at everything we are doing and how we do it. I know there is so much being done right, but there is also much that can be done better. I learned long ago that one of the SEC's greatest strengths has been its ability to adapt to change, while never forgetting that it is the American people we are here to serve.
The challenges we face are historic. But they're not insurmountable. It will take determination, hard work, toughness, and above all, an unrelenting will to stand up for investors.
But make no mistake. Regulation is a two-way street. The "regulated" need not wait for a regulator's reforms, though they will come. At a time when investors are appalled at the ways of Wall Street, it is there that change must begin. A strong and reinvigorated SEC will be on the beat like never before to catch wrongdoers. But there needs to be a new era of responsibility on Wall Street and throughout our markets to ensure that wrongs don't occur in the first place. The sooner that Wall Street works to repair its own problems, the sooner investors will once again find the confidence to invest in what should be the finest markets in the world.
There is much we can do to accelerate that process, including giving shareholders a greater say on who serves on corporate boards, and how company executives are paid.
There is much to be accomplished, but this morning I'm here to describe how we will approach the challenges we face, and the actions we've already taken.
At my confirmation hearing, I emphasized the need for the SEC to move with the sense of urgency that investors demand — to be willing and able to move quickly, precisely, and decisively to take actions that will restore investor trust and confidence in our financial markets.
Investors are looking to the SEC to protect them. To do that well, we have to act swiftly to respond to market events, and that means we must be willing to change the way we do business.
Those who break the law and take advantage of investors need to know that they will face an unrelenting law enforcement agency in the SEC — an agency that will pursue them until the full force of the law is the sure, certain, and sole reward for their wrongdoing. No one should be heard credibly to question whether enforcement is a priority at the SEC. It is, and always will remain, a foundation of our mission.
As the first SEC Chairman, Joseph Kennedy, told the nation 75 years ago in explaining the agency's role, "The Commission will make war without quarter on any who sell securities by fraud or misrepresentation."
As a first, but significant, step in empowering our Enforcement staff, I am this week taking action to end the Commission's two-year "penalty pilot" experiment, which had required the Enforcement staff to obtain a special set of approvals from the Commission in cases involving civil monetary penalties for public companies as punishment for securities fraud.
In speaking to our Enforcement staff, I've been told that these special procedures have introduced significant delays into the process of bringing a corporate penalty case; discouraged staff from arguing for a penalty in a case that might deserve a penalty; and sometimes resulted in reductions in the size of penalties imposed.
At a time when the SEC needs to be deterring corporate wrongdoing, the "penalty pilot" sends the wrong message. The action I am taking to end the penalty pilot is designed to expedite the Commission's enforcement efforts to ensure that justice is swiftly served to those public companies who commit serious acts of securities fraud.
Another immediate change I am putting in place to bolster the SEC's enforcement program is to provide for more rapid approval of formal orders of investigation — the permission slips given out by the Commission that allow SEC staff to use the power of subpoenas to compel witness testimony and the production of documents. When I was a Commissioner, formal orders were routinely reviewed and approved within a couple of days by written approval of the Commission or by "duty officer" — a single Commissioner acting promptly and on behalf of the entire Commission.
Today, however, many formal orders of investigation are made subject to full review at a meeting of all five Commissioners, necessitating that they be placed on the calendar sometimes weeks in advance. In investigations that require use of subpoena power, time is always of the essence, and every additional day of delay can be costly. To ensure that subpoena power is available to SEC staff when needed, I've given direction for the agency to return to the prior policy of timely approval of formal orders by seriatim approval or where appropriate, by a single Commissioner acting as duty officer.
In addition to these immediate actions, I have also spent much of my first week and a half on the job in meetings with my fellow Commissioners and the agency's senior staff to discuss other ways in which we can reinvigorate the SEC's enforcement program, including improving the handling of tips and whistleblower complaints and focusing on areas where investors are most at risk. And I anticipate that we'll be making further improvements in the coming weeks and months to ensure swift and vigorous enforcement.
In deciding upon regulatory priorities, it is vital that the SEC re-engage with the people we serve: investors. The investor community — from the largest pension fund to the family who has saved in their 401(k) or 529 plan — needs to feel that they have someone on their side — that they can go to the SEC to seek redress, or to have their opinions heard.
To that end, we will form an Investor Advisory Committee to ensure that the Commission hears first hand about the issues most concerning to investors.
The crisis facing our capital markets will require aggressive and timely action to restore investor trust and confidence. To this end, allow me to highlight a few of the initiatives that I hope to pursue as priorities:
Improving the quality of credit ratings by addressing the inherent conflicts of interest credit rating agencies face as a result of their compensation models and limiting the impact of credit ratings on capital requirements of regulated financial institutions.
Reducing systemic risk to investors and markets by promoting — and regulating appropriately — centralized clearinghouses for credit default swaps.
Strengthening risk-based oversight of broker-dealers and investment advisers.
Improving the quality of audits for nonpublic broker-dealers and promoting the safe and sound custody of customer assets by any broker-dealer or investment adviser.
Seventy-five years after the SEC was founded, the Commission finds itself in a situation where, once again, it must play a critical role in reviving our markets, bolstering investor confidence, and rejuvenating our economy.
The American people want and expect us to update the regulatory system that has failed them — and to prevent the kinds of abuses that have contributed to the economic crisis we now face.
Even as we pursue these regulatory priorities, the SEC will also be working closely with Congress to ensure that legislative restructuring of our financial regulatory system will preserve and strengthen our commitment to transparency, accountability, disclosure, and most of all, investor protection.
I am under no illusion that this will be an easy job. There is a lot of work to be done — quickly and diligently — in the months ahead. I look forward to this challenge, to helping the millions of investors who rely on strong markets and a strong economy, and to working with the professionals at the SEC.
The above speech sounds like we will have a great improvment in the confidnece the American people feel for their government.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Home | Previous Page Modified: 02/06/2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe To WALL STREET FRAUDSTERS
Posts
All Comments