[dalbasal]

Look at the language of SEC (and other regulators outside of technical fields like pharma).

There are very occasional "landmark" regulations, often legislated, that are explicit. EG Sarbanes-Oxley.

Day-2-day, the SEC works mostly by signalling. They might make a policy declaration, or send letters to CEOs. They'll note things in periodic firm reviews. Publicly raise an eyebrow. Take action against or investigate one firm and publish findings. Rarely are specifically worded edicts issued.

Regulating bodies are designed to work largely through pressure instead of (ironically) through regulations. This is by design. Regulators are usually created in response to firms having won the loophole cat and mouse games, and the prohibitive complexity of actual regulations. If government wanted rules, they can just legislate directly instead of delegating to a regulator.

"Compliance" is often about staying away from trouble by playing a sort of guessing game. It doesn't mean that it's "hands off."

[emteycz]

Agreed, but one point:

> Regulators are usually created in response to firms having won the loophole cat and mouse games, and the prohibitive complexity of actual regulations. If government wanted rules, they can just legislate directly instead of delegating to a regulator.

Large motivation to create regulatory bodies is expertise and focus on one (or more related) subject, and these regulatory bodies often simply recommend to the government/legislators and do the management the law mandates.

IMHO this 'suggestive' mode of operation is not usual outside of finance. (I might be wrong though, I have never seen a full list of regulatory bodies.)