 | This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. | |  B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. | | Top | This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. | | | EDGAR is not featured prominently in this article, which seems odd, since EDGAR is what levels the playing field for individual investors vs. big Wall Street houses and is one of the main reasons the average investor is interested in the SEC. One of the hottest issues in financial disclosure revolves around the new XBRL standard and is directly related to EDGAR Filings. Why were these links removed? We added link to EDGAR back in the new rewrite. Fred Hsu 01:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC) [edit] Merge article Should "Stock Market Regulation in the United States" and "U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission" be merged?: - NO - DISAGREE: Stock Market Regulation in the United States is done not only by the SEC, but every state has rules and regulations, every states Secretary of State monitors securities, every states Attorney General files lawsuites based on regulations of securities fraud.
State Securities Regulators: Other regulatory bodies: The Stock Market Regulation in the United States article needs to be expanded to include these other regulators. So I vote NO on this one. WikiDon 08:11, 27 September 2005 (UTC) - Agreed - if it becomes a more general article, then it makes sense to have a seperate entry. I'm not too happy with the name (apart from all the Capitals) - it should rather be "Securities regulation in the United States", as the term stock market can be vague, and all regulation will refer to the issuance and trading of securities. Also, in the article there should be a clear distinction between:
- Government agencies such as the SEC and MSRB
- Industry organisations such as the NASD and ICMA, that serve as self-regulatory bodies.
- Commercial stock exchanges such as NYSE & AMEX that have their own internal regulations regarding the companies that list on them
- Also, the scope will have to make sense - if it becomes too broad we will have to rename it again to include financial regulation in general. DocendoDiscimus 11:15, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] How is Chair selected? Does the President appoint the Chair (as per article) or do the Commissioners elect him/her? - Ted Wilkes 19:31, 6 November 2005 (UTC) - The President appoints the chair. Accordingly, if the President disagrees with an SEC chairman, he/she theoretically could appoint a new chair from among the remaining 4 commissioners (with the old chair becoming a "normal" commissioner). But since the chairman has a 5 year term as a commissioner, the President can't actually remove a chairman from the SEC during that term (absent cause) -- though (as I said), the chair doesn't necessarily have to remain chair. That the SEC chairman resigns at the start of a new administration is tradition, not a requirement. [[User:Epstein's Mother|]] (talk) 16:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Ungrammatical text fragment removed Dear fellow editors: On 7 March 2006 I deleted the following ungrammatical text that had been inserted by an anonymous user near the end of the main article: -
-
- the SEC regulates gave Congress the power to regulate stock comissions as well
I'm not sure what the user was trying to say. The phrase "the SEC regulates gave Congress the power [ . . . ] " makes no sense. I would guess the writer meant that "Congress gave the SEC the power to regulate stock commissions" or something to that effect. Yours, Famspear 15:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC) [edit] Mission Statement I removed the following sentence added by User:Noble Element. Fred Hsu 04:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC) On December 23, 2005, Chairman Chris Cox elminated the words “Since its inception in 1934", "Honest", and "Integrity” from the Mission Statement of the SEC. [1] And this external link: 2005 Change in Mission Statement' - Fred-
- I don't understand why this reference was removed? I believe this 1st change in the SEC Mission statement after almost 60 years is profound. Why not help me to properly document the change?
- Here's a way to document the link that refers only to the Government website material:
- On December 23, 2005, Chairman Chris Cox elminated the words “Since its inception in 1934", "Honest", and "Integrity” from the Mission Statement of the SEC
- http://sec.gov/about/secpar/secpar2005.pdf#sec1 on Page 4, 5 Paragraph, 1st Sentence
- "The SEC’s mission is to protect investors; to maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets; and to facilitate capital formation."
- Please advise at your convenience Fred, Thanks JAC. 05:10, 10 July 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.41.128 (talk • contribs) and by 05:13, 10 July 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noble Element (talk • contribs)
-
- If you look at the cited article (faulkingtruth.com), you'll see that Mr. Cox was NOT the one who made the changes (or, at least, all of them - he's only been Chairman for what, a year?). The article does provide links to ORIGINAL sources; in my opinion those should be used EXCLUSIVELY, since the faulkingtruth.com page is rather long and doesn't get the matter exactly right when it starts (the part you quote).
-
- As to whether this is newsworthy or not, I think at most the wikipedia article should say something like "In 200x, the stated mission of the SEC was whatever; by 2005 (or whenever), this had been changed to whatever." And provide two links so that the reader can see for him/herself. John Broughton 14:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with Broughton completely. Fred Hsu 01:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't get it. Integrity is mentioned all over the place, right before and right after the mission statement. It's just that they reduced the statement itself to about 10 words. And what's the difference between "fair" and "honest"? Can you be fair and not honest? (And while we're at it, can you protect investors and have a fair market without market integrity? Aren't these all essentially synonyms?) This seems to me to be scandal-mongering. Epstein's Mother 05:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC) I feel that this should be deleted since it states the exact same thing at the beginning. --Nubbie44 02:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC) [edit] Redirect??? Should SEC really redirect here? there are plenty other SEC's and some may question whether it would be better if SEC redirected to the disambiguation page. Googolme* 23:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC) - The U.S. SEC is the oldest and best known of all the "SECs" in the world. It's a bit like "FBI" or "CIA" or even "FSA" (in the UK) -- even in other countries, the default is you mean the American version. Epstein's Mother (talk) 03:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes. This is the SEC. Kingturtle (talk) 04:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC) - I disagree. The first thing that pops into my mind when I hear "SEC" is the Southeastern Conference.
- At the very least, "SEC" should go straight to the disambiguation page. Frankly, IMO, it's POV to redirect it straight to this. toll_booth (talk) 12:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
-
- If you google "SEC", the first and second references are to the Securities and Exchange Commission. You don't get to the Southeastern Conference until the 3rd reference, and that's with US Google. Run the search in a different country and the Southeastern Conference will be far further down the list. Epstein's Mother (talk) 14:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Short selling probes Are we going to add information about the short selling probes? [2] Pierre.cardoone (talk) 03:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC) [edit] Restrictions on non-US investments for US citizens I would like more information on how the SEC rules effectively restrict US citizens from directly investing in non-US mutual funds. Is this information elsewhere on Wikipedia, and can it be added to this article? simonthebold (talk) 14:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC) - That's a pretty narrow issue. Also, there are no restrictions on US citizens directly investing in non-US mutual funds. US citizens can call up a foreign mutual fund and invest at any time. The prohibition is on non-SEC registered mutual funds calling up or otherwise soliciting investors in the United States (not US citizens per se). And, on this, the SEC is hardly unique. That's generally the rule around the world. Epstein's Mother (talk) 19:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
-
- As I understand it the reason why most non-US mutual funds are not available to US "persons" (as they tend to be termed) is that the either the SEC or IRS require reporting of returns in a specialized way that most non-US providers don't provide. The SEC then exerts enormous pressure on the "foreign" provider through their dollar banking links to comply with US legislation. This results in most non-US providers refusing to deal with US-citizens. I would really like to understand the reasons for this and get more info. simonthebold (talk) 23:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
-
- I found the following quote here "One nasty feature of US tax law, however, is the treatment of non-SEC-registered mutual funds as PFICs"
- It seems like a government policy to restrict any investment in non-US investment funds (to me). simonthebold (talk) 00:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- The latter are tax law issues, and don't touch on the SEC. (Perhaps something to bring up under the IRS, but not the SEC.) On the former (SEC filing requirements), this is not unique to the SEC, are a disclosure and accounting issue, and are not a prohibition on US citizens investing abroad. (Saying non-US providers don't provide this information is the same as saying that providers in other countries operating under different regulatory requirements adhere to those requirements rather than the regulations in the US. It's the same everywhere.) Epstein's Mother (talk) 18:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
-
- No its Section 7(d) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 as implemented by SEC. See here. simonthebold (talk) 00:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- The default under Section 7(d) is that mutual funds be organized in the U.S., but that section explicitly allows the SEC to provide an exemption to foreign mutual funds. The SEC is more than willing to provide such an exemption, but only if the foreign fund is registered with the SEC. (As a practical matter, adhering to Section 7(d) is not problematic -- all you have to do is create a shell company in Delaware and have the mutual fund structured under that shell.) The much more difficult proposition is registering with the SEC, since the SEC's disclosure requirements are far stricter than most countries'. But the overarching point is the same; most countries require mutual funds and investment advisors operating in their territory to be regulated by the local regulator. The only difference here is that the SEC is a stricter regulator. (And the original point is that this is a prohibition on U.S. investors from investing in foreign funds. That's not the case. The prohibition is on foreign funds soliciting U.S. investors unless they are registered with the SEC.) Epstein's Mother (talk) 18:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
-
- Your right we've got off the point a bit. Perhaps the question is why do so many of the worlds non-US collective investment schemes expressly exclude US persons from buying their funds? It appears that US persons are not forbidden to buy them by US law so why do so many funds exclude themselves from such a potentially large market? Many fund houses will accept business from almost any country, but exclude US persons? see here simonthebold (talk) 10:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- The reason for that is actually pretty straight-forward. The SEC takes a very broad interpretation of what constitutes solicitation and investment advice, and has a very broad (some would say extra-territorial) approach to jurisdiction. Many other jurisdictions do not. While a US investor is free to invest in mutual funds in almost any country (Cuba, North Korea, and a few others excluded), a foreign mutual fund explicitly (or even implicitly) offering its services to US investors may easily find itself violating US securities laws. Since the SEC takes the position that a website offering investment services is a solicitation, a website accessible in the US that does not explicitly exclude US investors can be construed to be offering investment services to US investors, which is illegal in the US if you are not registered with the SEC. Since most non-US mutual funds don't want to take the risk of falling afoul of US laws, they exclude US investors preemptively. Epstein's Mother (talk) 01:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
-
- This seems to fit together now. The SEC controls access to US investors by its broad interpretation of soliciting for investment. US tax law treats non-US funds punitively. Reporting requirements make it hard comply with US tax law an therefore make investing in non-US mutual funds a headache for any US investor. The effect of these factors is that it not practical for most US persons to invest in non-US funds. The overall result is a protectionist regime for US mutual funds.
-
- Thanks for your input on these issues. Perhaps some of this could be incorporated into this article? Or do you think a separate article addressing these points is warranted? simonthebold (talk) 09:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- I think you've got it reversed. US investors actively invest in foreign securities, markets and funds. Approximately 2/3 of all US investors who invest in equities hold foreign securities (mostly through funds). The SEC controls access to the US market, not to US investors per se (who are free to, and do, invest abroad). In order for something to be protectionist, it has to be discriminatory, and SEC regulations are not -- foreign funds are not required to adhere to any additional requirements than are domestic funds. It's just that the US standards are the strictest in the world, with the most aggressive inspections regime, and most non-US funds would just prefer to avoid the oversight. (After all, it's my understanding that 85% of all UK firms are not inspected by the UK FSA. Going from that to a system where SEC inspectors show up at your door with no warning is a shock to most.) Basically, the SEC is saying that if you want to play in their market, you have to play by their rules. (And if an advertisement isn't a solicitation, what is?) That doesn't seem protectionist. (I've got no views on the tax issue, though I suspect if it were discriminatory, it would be brought before the WTO. The difference may be that because the US has world-wide taxation for its citizens, the IRS has a default treatment for foreign earnings unless that foreign mutual fund sets up some kind of withholding or reporting system, which most firms wouldn't bother to do for the odd US investor.) Epstein's Mother (talk) 14:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
-
- I think you're presenting the US regime in a slightly benign light here. As you noted the SEC has and extra-terratorial approach to enforcement. How exactly does it enforce its decisions against non-US investment providers who fall foul of US legislation?
- The UK and Europe has well regulated and mature 'mutual fund' markets but exclude US persons for the reasons discussed. Effectively, US laws/policies stop non-US funds from being purchased by US persons. Possibly this is an artifact of legislation intended to provide only protection for US investors, or possibly the vested interests that promoted and lobbied for the creation of the current regime knew what the net effect would be. You mention 2/3rds of investors; I wonder how many US investors hold international securities directly or via non-US registered mutual funds? I suspect not many. There is an industry devoted to providing access to these funds and investments via trusts and offshore shell companies that serves wealthy US investors.
- One of the main issues (which may not be appropriate to discus here) is the naure of the US tax system taxing gains annually, rather than when funds are sold. This system has a vested interest in keeping US investors under the control of US regulators. I suspect this is the main reasons the de facto trade barriers exist.
- I still feel some of these issues should be reflected in the article. Do you agree? simonthebold (talk) 15:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- I deleted the additional criticism language because the issue being discussed (broad interpretation of what constitutes solicitation) is not at all unusual. While many countries are less broad, many are just as broad or even more so. Epstein's Mother (talk) 19:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Epstein's Mother (talk • contribs)
Disclose anything before the quarterly SEC filings. It's up to the investor to do their homework on the company. 68.33.44.39 (talk) 01:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC) [edit] Cleanup of typos needed; suggestion re description of SEC {{editsemiprotected}} The opening sentence reading "... having primary responsibility for enforcing the federal securities laws and regulating the securities industry/stock market." should be changed to "...and regulating the securities industry, the nation's stock and options exchanges, and other electronic securities markets." Also, there is a punctuation error after "Currently the SEC commissioners are;" which should be a colon not a semicolon. There are other similar errors throughout -- this article could use a grammatical and syntactical check.Aseca21 (talk) 11:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)  Y I've completed the requested edit, and also changed a couple of other minor things, but the article doesn't look fully MOS-compatible throughout. I'll give it some TLC if I have time later. haz (talk) 12:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC) [edit] Current Annual Salary The current annual salary of a chairman at the SEC is $160,000 U.S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronewirl (talk • contribs) 12:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC) [citation needed] - I don't think that's right. Isn't there a locality adjustment that does in there? Epstein's Mother (talk) 16:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Chairs and Commissioners I added a new section called Commission members at the top, to emphasize the current commissioners. Further down, there is a section on Chairs and Commissioners, apparently to mention a separate article listing all the commissioners and former commissioners of the SEC. This section could be included with the earlier section. It seems somewhat awkwardly worded, though. Anyone interested in this idea should compare this article with Federal Communications Commission, Federal Election Commission and Federal Trade Commission articles. These articles provide more information about the current commissioners in the main article about the commissions. --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC) - Look at CFTC too, same situation, article and separate list of commissioners. --DThomsen8 (talk) 17:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Not so! The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2001 created the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) as a consequence of the Enron Scandal. Not so, but perhaps the editor does have something worthwhile in mind. --DThomsen8 (talk) 11:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC) |
