[lwigo]

They don't actually care about the little people. It's more about keeping the company in check so it doesn't become a monopoly for retail thumb traders faster than the next closest competitors in that category can catch up (which would be Webull I guess?). It's also a reminder that, hey, there's a shitton of (old) money in this field, better not get cocky.

Possibly too cynical of a take, but I'll reiterate the SEC doesn't care about the people browsing WSB.

[whimsicalism]

The SEC has regulatory capture issues. Way too close of ties with the people it is supposed to be regulating.

Take the example of this SEC investigator [0] whose boss got a call from one of those Wall Street hedge funds under investigation and suddenly he's fired! Mysteriously, that boss gets a job with the same firm a few months later. Oh, the kicker? The person who made that call from the hedge fund? Appointed to be the SEC chair in 2013 (she rejoined the hedge fund's counsel at the end of Obama's term in 2016).

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_J._Aguirre

e: for those downvoting, I'd love to hear your thoughts - I think it is an interesting issue.

[bfdm]

There really need to be rules about this kind of crap. It's nasty business.

[eru]

There are already lots and lots of rules.

[whimsicalism]

They're not really teethed though. I grew up in DC and new plenty of parents who were ex-chief of staffs or whatever and they literally would tell me that they were working for a lobbying firm as a "consultant" because that was a loophole for getting around the "can't join a lobbying firm rules."

[dnautics]

Nah, you just shut out good people who want to do good things but can't figure out rules or feel like the burden to doing good things or the potential penalty on technicality or slipup isn't worth it, and select for sociopaths who are adept at figuring out how to use rules (especially draconian ones) to their own advantage, spirit of the rule notwithstanding, because they WILL put up with the burden and the risk.

[whimsicalism]

> you just shut out good people who want to do good things but can't figure out rules

It's not really that complicated to not work for a lobbying firm for 2 years after leaving a chief of staff position for a Senator.

Nor do I particularly want people too dull to figure out those rules to be making laws for our entire country?

[seibelj]

This is par for the course in most government agencies that regulate private business. The SEC gets tons of press and scrutiny (and it happens anyway!) but there are innumerable government agencies with similar issues. You can also downvote me, but anyone who has worked deeply with the government from the private sector is full of WTF stories.

[whimsicalism]

It is common, but I would not go so far as to say "par for the course". Nor does the SEC get "tons of press and scrutiny" - indeed, you can see all of the positive op-eds written in places like the NYT and WaPo about Mary Jo White's appointment (with a few notable dissenters in Salon like Matt Taibi).

In the EPA, for instance, this was Obama's appointee: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gina_McCarthy. No significant industry ties. Here's another one of Obama's picks for FDA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Hamburg . Again, no significant industry ties.

[irl_zebra]

I did downvote you because you said I could, but this is absolutely true. But, it kind of should be true. Government employees need to strongly know the industry they’re regulating to regulate effectively. I can’t imagine someone with zero financial ties and only knowledge from school going to direct how the SEC does investigations any more than I can imagine the same happening at the FDA.

I don’t think there should be so much regulatory capture (there is), but I do think a revolving door of sorts for many positions is helpful from a perspective of knowing the regulated industry and acting with the best knowledge of regulating that industry.