Subscribe Subscribe   Find us on Twitter Follow POL on Twitter  



SEC Chairman Speaks

| No Comments

In a series of recent speeches, Mary Jo White provided a window into how she is approaching her relatively new job as head of the Securities and Exchange Commission. These speeches--one on market structure, one on SEC independence, and one on enforcement--signal some good and some not-so-good developments at the SEC.

On the positive side, Ms. White has shown an understanding for the limits of her agency and a sensitivity to its failures. She raised questions about the propriety of using SEC disclosure as a means for "exerting societal pressure on companies to change behavior, rather than to disclose financial information that primarily informs investment decisions." She noted the troubling trends of decreasing numbers of public companies and falling participation in the equity markets by U.S. households and called for an evidence-based, transparent rethinking of structural and regulatory issues that might be contributing to those trends.

Now for some of the negatives. First, the speeches suggest that the enforcement division may play an outsized role in Ms. White's SEC--a revelation that might not be surprising in light of her background as a prosecutor and defense lawyer. The SEC is not a law enforcement agency, but a regulatory agency and must take care not to make regulatory policy through enforcement actions. Ms. White advocated "creative" enforcement, which too often in the agency's past has been a euphemism for making up regulatory requirements through an after-the-fact enforcement action. Second, while Ms. White correctly underscored the independence of SEC commissioners, she did not take the concept far enough. Specifically, SEC commissioners, as the agency's decision-makers, have an obligation to test the rigor of the staff's work and to reject the staff's recommendations when better courses of action exist. In the context of enforcement cases, that means an end to rubber-stamping staff-crafted settlements. On a related note, Ms. White goes too far in arguing that courts should exercise nearly complete deference to the SEC in reviewing enforcement settlements. Courts ought to scrutinize SEC settlements, particularly if those settlements are intended, as Ms. White suggests, to send "a strong deterrent message" to third parties.

Time will tell whether the vision Ms. White laid out in her speeches comes to pass. As former SEC chairmen have learned, events can overtake even well-crafted plans. But, Ms. White's efforts to lay out her intentions for the SEC are a commendable step.

Leave a comment

Once submitted, the comment will first be reviewed by our editors and is not guaranteed to be published. Point of Law editors reserve the right to edit, delete, move, or mark as spam any and all comments. They also have the right to block access to any one or group from commenting or from the entire blog. A comment which does not add to the conversation, runs of on an inappropriate tangent, or kills the conversation may be edited, moved, or deleted.

The views and opinions of those providing comments are those of the author of the comment alone, and even if allowed onto the site do not reflect the opinions of Point of Law bloggers or the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research or any employee thereof. Comments submitted to Point of Law are the sole responsibility of their authors, and the author will take full responsibility for the comment, including any asserted liability for defamation or any other cause of action, and neither the Manhattan Institute nor its insurance carriers will assume responsibility for the comment merely because the Institute has provided the forum for its posting.

Related Entries:



Rafael Mangual
Project Manager,
Legal Policy

Manhattan Institute


Published by the Manhattan Institute

The Manhattan Insitute's Center for Legal Policy.