ADVERTISEMENT

Elizabeth Warren plans to use her political influence on the SEC

mjvcaj

Hall of Famer
Jun 25, 2005
50,064
1,467
113
This is quite sad, though I'm sure many will fail to see her political power abuse and only the end result.

Still, Matt Levine laughs at the notion of trying to force an agenda through via an industry agency.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-06-15/senators-think-stock-buybacks-might-be-manipulative

"The SEC is not especially in the business of regulating what companies do with their money. If you are a public company and you want to spend your money on paying your employees or developing a new car or building a big headquarters or giving it back to your shareholders, that is up to you, not the SEC."

"The proposals to prevent buybacks using SEC rules just seem very ... political. There seems to be a problem here, and the problem is that large public U.S. companies are investing less in the real economy than they used to. Perhaps that is because more investment is beingdone by private companies, and those companies find it less attractive to go public. Then you could solve the problem by making it more attractive to go public; alternatively, you could declare it not a problem, because those private companies are not exactly lacking for capital and opportunities. Or perhaps the cause is that investors are too short-term-oriented or economic conditions are too uncertain or managers are too risk-averse or something else, I don't know. If those are the causes, you'd want to go address them. But those are hard problems for a government to address. They're hard problems for anyone to address -- they're just hard -- but they're particularly hard to address by rules. You can't just command innovation."



 
How was the initial 'safe harbor' from manipulation liability determined? It was enacted in 1982 by the SEC commissioners, right? . . . And prior to that stock buy-backs were considered manipulation? Which was when which party had a majority of the SEC commissioners, and who had appointed that majority of SEC commissioners, including the SEC chairman?

I'm shocked, I'm shocked to find politics are going on in the SEC . . . .

I'd like to see the rule changed back to the way it was prior to 1982 if for no other reason than as an experiment to see whether dividends and wages go back up to levels closer to those prevailing before the rule change.

I have to say, mj, you are a highly reliable shill for Wall Street and all values determined by concentrated wealth . . . to which I say "meh".
 
How was the initial 'safe harbor' from manipulation liability determined? It was enacted in 1982 by the SEC commissioners, right? . . . And prior to that stock buy-backs were considered manipulation? Which was when which party had a majority of the SEC commissioners, and who had appointed that majority of SEC commissioners, including the SEC chairman?

Did you even read what you asked? If the SEC states: "Rule 10b-18, which was adopted in 1982, provides a voluntary "safe harbor" from liability for manipulation under Sections 9(a)(2) and 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act), and Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act, when an issuer or its affiliated purchaser bids for or purchases shares of the issuer's common stock in accordance with the Rule 10b-18's manner, timing, price, and volume conditions."

That would indicate that prior to 1982, manipulation liability was present, not that all buyback activities were manipulative, right?

So, since Reagan was in office, you are implying that he influenced the SEC to change its practices? I'm not suggesting he did or didn't (I don't know the answer), but your response is quite the double standard. Being a lawyer, shouldn't you desire that regulations, such as the safe harbor provided by the SEC, only be changed for reasons related to abusive usage (i.e. demonstrated illegal activity or manipulation by firms that are somehow hiding behind the safe harbor)? Rather, it appears that

I'd like to see the rule changed back to the way it was prior to 1982 if for no other reason than as an experiment to see whether dividends and wages go back up to levels closer to those prevailing before the rule change.

Interesting... so, you think that tender offers and dividends are going to change the rate of investment among corporate America? Does it matter the mechanism that cash flow is distributed to shareholders? As Levine states, reverting back to 1981 rules isn't going to change investor or activist behavior.

I have to say, mj, you are a highly reliable shill for Wall Street and all values determined by concentrated wealth . . . to which I say "meh".

Someone has to stand up for Capitalism from the Socialist assault that you seem to support. The SEC itself, purposefully does not have the power to make capital allocation decisions for a reason. I didn't realize you were becoming Dennis Kucinich.
 
Last edited:
Did you even read what you asked? If the SEC states: "Rule 10b-18, which was adopted in 1982, provides a voluntary "safe harbor" from liability for manipulation under Sections 9(a)(2) and 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act), and Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act, when an issuer or its affiliated purchaser bids for or purchases shares of the issuer's common stock in accordance with the Rule 10b-18's manner, timing, price, and volume conditions."

That would indicate that prior to 1982, manipulation liability was present, not that all buyback activities were manipulative, right?

So, since Reagan was in office, you are implying that he influenced the SEC to change its practices? I'm not suggesting he did or didn't (I don't know the answer), but your response is quite the double standard. Being a lawyer, shouldn't you desire that regulations, such as the safe harbor provided by the SEC, only be changed for reasons related to abusive usage (i.e. demonstrated illegal activity or manipulation by firms that are somehow hiding behind the safe harbor)? Rather, it appears that



Interesting... so, you think that tender offers and dividends are going to change the rate of investment among corporate America? Does it matter the mechanism that cash flow is distributed to shareholders? As Levine states, reverting back to 1981 rules isn't going to change investor or activist behavior.



Someone has to stand up for Capitalism from the Socialist assault that you seem to support. The SEC itself, purposefully does not have the power to make capital allocation decisions for a reason. I didn't realize you were becoming Dennis Kucinich.


Laughable mj . . . you're proving to be exactly the shill I have called you out to be.

Capitalism isn't under assault . . . the integrity of markets continues to be under assault by those who want to preserve wealth and power. I'm the guy who wants to ensure the integrity of those markets . . . you're just another wealthy-wannabe schmo . . . and you're not old enough, mature enough or experienced enough to know the difference.

Meh.

As for Levine, he's just another commentator . . . his statement about the effect of reverting rules back to 1981 standards is just smoke up everybody's ass until he can prove he's correct in the real world.
 
Capitalism isn't under assault . . . the integrity of markets continues to be under assault by those who want to preserve wealth and power.
It's often the case that those professing to protect capitalism are actually seeking to protect capitalists, which is a very different thing.
 
Laughable mj . . . you're proving to be exactly the shill I have called you out to be.

Capitalism isn't under assault . . . the integrity of markets continues to be under assault by those who want to preserve wealth and power. I'm the guy who wants to ensure the integrity of those markets . . . you're just another wealthy-wannabe schmo . . . and you're not old enough, mature enough or experienced enough to know the difference.

Meh.

As for Levine, he's just another commentator . . . his statement about the effect of reverting rules back to 1981 standards is just smoke up everybody's ass until he can prove he's correct in the real world.

Typical empty rebuttal lacking any substance. Pretty sad for someone that hypes up his professional standing.
 
It's often the case that those professing to protect capitalism are actually seeking to protect capitalists, which is a very different thing.

Eyyup. What's troubling isn't so much when that happens if that's what the protector knowingly intends - troubling enough, but at least the person knows it - what is even more troubling is when folks who confuse the two are flummoxed into doing the protecting unwittingly . . . it's one of the most prevalent and effective scams going . . . .
 
Laughable mj . . . you're proving to be exactly the shill I have called you out to be.

Capitalism isn't under assault . . . the integrity of markets continues to be under assault by those who want to preserve wealth and power. I'm the guy who wants to ensure the integrity of those markets . . . you're just another wealthy-wannabe schmo . . . and you're not old enough, mature enough or experienced enough to know the difference.

Meh.

As for Levine, he's just another commentator . . . his statement about the effect of reverting rules back to 1981 standards is just smoke up everybody's ass until he can prove he's correct in the real world.

You have to understand that when people like mj and others cry out "free market!!!", they mean "no rules".
 
ADVERTISEMENT