[asmithmd1]

"The SEC certainly has its flaws"

Can you name any successes? Most recently the settlement they proposed with Citibank was so laughably one sided a judge threw it out.

Most people know about the Madoff case being handed to them on a silver platter and they did nothing.

Why not disband the SEC?

[1010100101]

Interesting.

So you think that with no SEC the public will be safer from people like Madoff?

Do you think that investors would be able to make sound investment decisions without companies having any reporting requirements? Not every country in the world has such requirements and I think the SEC in that regard alone (call it a "success" if you will) is something to be commended.

It's one thing to say people at the SEC are not doing their jobs. But it's another thing to question the rationale and purpose behind the regulations. Are you doing both? Or just one?

If I'm not mistaken the senator is only doing the later.

[asmithmd1]

Yes - the public would be better off with no SEC.

The agency has undergone "Regulatory Capture" and therefore does nothing to stop insiders like Madoff and hassles law abiding companies. The fact that they exist gives people a false sense of security that anything you can buy from a stock broker is not an outright fraud. Without them people would do the due diligence on their own. Any outright frauds could be handled by local police or FBI if it crosses state lines. Again, the whistle blower in the Madoff case thought he was done by sending info to the SEC; he might have gotten farther with a local DA or the FBI

[1010100101]

So where does the investor obtain the information to perform due diligence? Are companies required to file reports? If so, with whom do they file them?