We’ve wondered often just what it is that makes our financial regulators so toothless in the wake of the widespread fraud and chicanery that helped crash the financial system.
This, reported in The New York Times this morning, obviously isn’t the main problem, but it sure doesn’t help:
On a recent trip to New York to tour a trading floor, a group of employees from the commodities watchdog rode Mega Bus both ways, arriving late to their meeting despite a 5:30 a.m. departure. The bus, which cost $30 a person round trip, saved the agency roughly $1,000 over Amtrak.
Now, I’ve taken the Megabus, as well as BoltBus, DC2NY, and Fung Wah, countless times between DC and New York. But never on a business trip, and never in a suit.
Try to envision a gaggle of Commodity Futures Trading Commission agents headed for a meeting with some Goldman Sachs sharps. The CFTCers scrunch into two rows of the bus, briefcases on their laps, as the DC2NY driver gets on the PA to go over the bus rules, which include “No No. 2 in the bathroom!”
The Times’s story this morning is clearly one of those that crop up around budget-cutting time as bureaucrats unleash sob stories about their funding woes. But this one is wholly believable.
The Megabus anecdote is killer. But this one’s pretty good, too:
Until recently, employees from the commission were instructed not to order certain office supplies — items like three-hole punches and heavy-duty staplers.
These anecdotes are important. Compare how this story catches your attention versus how this December Wall Street Journal story on the same topic doesn’t. It’s that extra time spent reporting that turns what could have been a run-of-the-mill budget piece into something more.
And the Times reports that there are much more serious consequences of the funding shortage than stapler shortages and bus tickets: The SEC is cutting back on using expert witnesses in trials. It sends just one lawyer to depose witnesses. The CFTC quit hiring people for a year. Its chairman had to pay to Brussels help devise derivatives rules. And then there’s this:
The agency only recently started to again examine investment firms and public companies in some Southern states, after postponing reviews to avoid paying for plane fares.
That’s just outrageous.
Nor is this underfunding a new phenomenon. Here’s my friend Moe Tkacik two years ago on a report from the Government Accountability Office on the woes at the SEC pre-financial crisis:
Investigative attorneys with whom we spoke concurred that having little or no administrative or paralegal support causes them to spend considerable time on non-legal duties such as copying, filing, document-scanning, preparing exhibits, making travel arrangements, soliciting bids for court reporters, and logging and processing documents submitted by respondents. For example, one attorney told us such duties can take 2 to 3 hours daily. Another, who joined the agency from private practice, said that investigative attorneys can spend up to half their time on tasks handled by support staff in their previous position. One attorney told us of plans to spend a day assembling document storage boxes. Because there is insufficient in-house copying capability, confidential documents sometimes are sent to non-secure outside copy shops. Frequent equipment breakdowns mean attorneys must search for working copiers and scanners, a number of attorneys told us…
Several attorneys said that another significant shortcoming is that the investigative staff does not have access to real-time trading information…Currently, when attorneys need such information, they manually query hundreds of broker-dealers, a process that initially produces only incomplete records. Or, they might request data from a regulated entity such as FINRA.
As the Times reports, the SEC lately has been bringing in more money than it spends, despite the ridiculously lowball fines it issues.
It misses by not reporting on a possible solution to these woes—one that many have proposed for years: self-funding.
That doesn’t mean the SEC and CFTC would have to go out and slap fines on people to cover their costs. But they would require the institutions they regulate to pay for their oversight, much like the FDIC does.
- 1
- 2
Great piece, @Ryan. Thanks for the catch.
You quoted:
Some Republicans argue that the regulators’ cries of poverty are overblown. The S.E.C.’s budget this year is $1.18 billion, up 6 percent over 2010 — and nearly triple what it was a decade ago.
and then you added:
The Times should have given us a sentence or two on why the SEC is still struggling despite the big budget increases of the last ten years. Presumably, it’s mostly because its mandates have increased.
This increase, let's be clear, was under Christopher Cox, a bush appointee, who has been shown to be profoundly incompetent, and hostile to the very mission of the SEC.
But seriously, what the hell is the SEC doing with more than one billion dollars that they can't hire some clerical staff and buy office supplies? I don't really buy your hypothesis that its "mandates have increased." What does that actually mean? Seriously, what the hell are they (the SEC) doing with their money? It's not a good use of time for these lawyers to be performing the function of clerical staff. That's just incompetent management, full stop.
And I'm not sold on the SEC being "self-funded." With this kind of mismanagement, isn't that inviting a situation like the MMS, where the government staff finds itself in bed (literally!) with the people they oversee? This is what happened with S&P and the ratings organizations, which are, admittedly, not part of the government. But the danger is still there. There has got to be a better way.
#1 Posted by James, CJR on Wed 4 May 2011 at 01:40 PM
"Self-funding"? Isn't that kind of like having the credit agencies funded by, oh, I don't know, the people whose financial products they're rating?
#2 Posted by Richard, CJR on Wed 4 May 2011 at 05:33 PM
James, Richard--I don't see why self-funding has to be like the MMS, much less S&P. The problem with self-funding mechanisms like those used by OTS was that banks were able to shop regulators. That meant if a regulator wanted to keep or increase its budget it was incented to become the nicest regulator in town.
It seems to me that the SEC and CFTC would have no such problem. I'm unclear on why they would need to get into bed with those they regulate if they have the independent power to tax them to cover their budget.
#3 Posted by Ryan Chittum, CJR on Wed 4 May 2011 at 07:31 PM
My concern is that they would be under even less scrutiny and Congressional oversight than they already are if they were self-funded. The SEC in particular is already profoundly corrupt such that they are unable to carry out their mission.
Again, what are they doing with this billion dollar budget if they are too incompetent to hire clerical staff? And if a billion dollars isn't enough to run the agency, maybe they need to start imposing fines that actually serve as deterrence to bad behavior. Maybe they need to replace the management with more competent and honest people who are motivated to carry out the mission of the agency.
It's not clear to me why changing into a self-funding agency is going to solve these kinds of systemic problems.
#4 Posted by James, CJR on Wed 4 May 2011 at 08:37 PM
You'll get no arguments from me on that, James. I've long thought they should blow the whole thing up and start again.
#5 Posted by Ryan Chittum, CJR on Wed 4 May 2011 at 11:21 PM
We are agreed, then. Denote the moment!
#6 Posted by James, CJR on Wed 4 May 2011 at 11:33 PM
Come now, Ryan... What mandates have been "presumably" increased in the last ten years that require more than a tripling of the SEC's budget? Huh?
This is the same agency that had proof positive that Bernie Madoff was crooked during the Clinton administration and all through the Bush administration... And did nothing..
And we're actually wondering why these functionaries can't manage to negotiate a field trip to NYC?
Seriously?
The real question here is "why in the hell are SEC regulators spending our money to take a 'tour' of the trading floor"?
Let me tell you what was in the luggage compartment of that Megabus...
Knicks tickets... Saks bags... Corvoisier... Lubriderms... Etc.. Etc...
#7 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Thu 5 May 2011 at 07:45 AM
And another thing, while we're talking about money-sucking government boondoggles...
Had these SEC regulators chosen to ride Amtrak instead of the Megabus to their Manhattan "tour", and had they chosen to ride Acela (the shining star of American high-speed, business class rail service) they would have been riding on a train that has been late more than 20% of the time over the last 12 months....
I bet the Megabus does better than that...
#8 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Thu 5 May 2011 at 07:57 AM