Editorial

SEC must step up, whatever its funding

Jan 19, 2014 @ 12:01 am

The Securities and Exchange Commission was dealt a significant blow last week when the House and Senate approved a $1.1 trillion spending agreement that will fund the regulator at $1.35 billion, which is

$324 million less than its 2014 budget request.

The bipartisan agreement, which will keep the federal government's lights on through September, also cut to $25 million, from $50 million, a special reserve fund upon which the agency draws to pay for improvements in information technology.

As pleased as we are to see Democrats and Republicans reaching consensus on anything, underfunding the SEC at a time when the commission is in dire need of additional resources to finish and enforce the Dodd-Frank financial reforms is penny-wise and pound-foolish. 

That said, the SEC must not use Congress' penny-pinching and shortsightedness as an excuse to renege on its promise two weeks ago to step up adviser examinations in fiscal year 2014 and beyond. As first reported last week at InvestmentNews.com, the SEC intends to accomplish that goal by streamlining its examination for a group of about 1,000 advisers who have been registered for three years or more but never audited.

OVERSIGHT

Investment advi-ser oversight in the U.S. is sorely lacking, and the financial security of millions of Americans is put in harm's way because of it. In its fiscal year 2014 budget request, the SEC said that it examined only about 8% of the 11,000 registered advisers in FY 2012 and that 40% of advisers have never been examined.

Simply put: The low number of adviser examinations by the SEC is unacceptable. 

While we are heartened that the agency plans to step up examinations, the timing of that announcement (a week before Congress was set to begin budget deliberations) is cause for concern. 

One has to ask: Is the agency really serious about bolstering adviser exams? Or was the agency simply engaging in political gamesmanship and hoping to convince lawmakers to be more generous in their funding by demonstrating that it is taking widespread criticism about its lack of focus on advisers?

We hope the former.

0
Comments

What do you think?

View comments

Recommended for you

Featured video

INTV

Wirehouse training programs are in vogue

At one time, major brokerage houses ran large, expensive training programs for thousands of young brokers, and now it looks as if they are about to return to that model.

Video Spotlight

Will It Last As Long As Your Clients Do?

Sponsored by Prudential

Video Spotlight

The Catalyst

Sponsored by Pershing

Latest news & opinion

Brian Block denies cooking the books at Schorsch REIT

Former CFO claims everything he did was 'appropriate' and 'correct.'

Interns will take on several roles at advisory firms this summer

College students are helping with client prep, firm visioning and long-term projects, among other duties.

10 funds with largest 3-year outflows

Even well-managed funds that have beaten the S&P 500’s 10.1% average annual gain have watched investors flee.

Wirehouse training programs are back

At one time, major brokerage houses ran large, expensive training programs for thousands of young brokers, and now it looks as if they are about to return to that model.

New military pension rules need financial advisers to step up and serve

Matching defined contribution plan expected to see more money, more need for sound advice.

X

Subscribe and Save 60%

Premium Access
Print + Digital

Learn more
Subscribe to Print