. . . . . . . . S. E. C. Schmesheesee! . . . . .
Regarding the Bush Admin appointment of Pitt as the new SEC Chairman. . . . .Oh, brother! >sigh< . . . .well, we will know soon enough whether Harvey Pitt has enough integrity to put his past behind him and start fresh and honestly embrace the job offered him. . . . and have enough self-control that he will ignore special interests, potential conflict-of-interests, former clients and big business or Wall Street pressures. . . .and get on with the business at hand . . . . of moving the securities industry into the digital age in a manner which is fair to all concerned. Or will he succumb to the pressures and ways of his former world. . . unravel what Arthur Leavitt has set into motion . . . and continue working to keep the playing field as UN-level as possible. . . in favor of the Wall Street insiders?
At first glance, it would appear that this was a major mistake by the Bush administration.
The NYT article said: He was a top lobbyist for an industry-led initiative that made significant changes in the securities laws in 1995 that have helped to insulate companies from class actions filed by investors.
It said that as an attorney his clients included insider trader Ivan Boesky, Lloyds of London and Microstrategy's Chairman. . . .all of which have been the subject of SEC investigations.
Or how about this quote:
he helped to broker a deal on behalf of the accounting industry that substantially watered down the proposals by Mr. Levitt
I am not very pleased with what I see going on at the Post-Leavitt Securities and Exchange Commission.
On a similar note. . .
Ms. Unger's "Investor Survey" was a joke!
She is on a hunting expedition to see which regulations she can get approved due to the results of her survey. Such as. . . how much influence the analysts have over individual investors. She should rather be looking at how they move the markets, how they pump and dump and how they purposely mislead the public all for the purpose of maximizing their profits and minimizing their risk against the retail investor.
Anyway, she wants to know if we are overtrading our accounts based on our portfolio holdings and resources. She wants to know where investors might be cutting corners and whether there should be more regulations placed on us to protect us from ourselves.
I cannot see how any result from the survey could be used to LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD. But then that is NOT the mandate of the SEC, as we learned earlier in the year.
An analogy is needed to show why I believe the Investor Survey is ultimately bad for us:
Ask 10,000 drivers how many of them have run a stop sign in the past 6 months. . . .ask them how many have driven over the speed-limit on any road in the past 6 months. . . ask them how many have run a red light in the past 6 months, whether by accident or deliberate. Ask them if they have committed any other moving violations in which they were not cited over the past 2 years.
The answers will be something like:
98%?
99%?
94%?
92%?
Now ask the question: If a motorcycle a garbage truck and a Mercedes Sedan arrived simultaneously at a 3-way stop. . . the motorcycle was wanting to go straight, the truck was wanting to turn right and the Mercedes was wanting to turn left which vehicle would have the right-of-way?
Trick question: Everybody knows that Mercedes vehicles always have the right-of-way. >g<
Anyway. . . you get the idea. . . the result of such a survey would likely be touted as a "new finding" that drivers are "out-of-control" and must be more tightly regulated. This would provide evidence to congress that "something needs done"! Perhaps an electronic motion detector/camera device attached to the back of the stop sign, which will sense that you did not come to a complete stop and automatically take a picture of your license plate, then send a moving violation ticket to the owner of the car. . . . same with others. Automatic speed sensors placed into vehicles which restrict the car from surpassing posted speeds? An alarm that sounds within your vehicle when approaching a traffic light that you can't possibly pass legally. And more strict written tests each time you get your license renewed.
What it won't result in is the trusting that perhaps the driver had perfect vision of all directions and was certain that there were no cars coming, and felt it was completely safe to proceed with caution without coming to a complete stop at the stop sign. It was never the intent of the survey to make such a finding.
Exact same thing applies to our trading. . . and the "Investor Survey". I have major trouble seeing where any good can come from this survey of the ways of the typical Individual Investor/Trader. The survey already appears to be completely slanted. It has been suggested by several of you that I propose that we pass the word to purposely skew the survey to keep them from getting the "ammunition" they seek to use against us.
I would be willing to take suggestions on specifics. . . and am open to further discussion of this, however, I cannot personally endorse such an action.
If Ms. Unger or anyone was truly interested in helping matters FOR US. . . they would ask the Individual Investors to create our own fact finding survey. . .and ask us what issues are of most concern to us and what hinders our trading. . . and what we see as unfair, unjust and illegal. I guarantee, however, they and the Wall Street Po'Boys would NOT appreciate the outcome of such a survey.
And so it goes. . .
Rande Is |
