Jump to content

Talk:U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

EDGAR

EDGAR is not featured prominently in this article, which seems odd, since EDGAR is what levels the playing field for individual investors vs. big Wall Street houses and is one of the main reasons the average investor is interested in the SEC.

One of the hottest issues in financial disclosure revolves around the new XBRL standard and is directly related to EDGAR Filings. Why were these links removed?

We added link to EDGAR back in the new rewrite. Fred Hsu 01:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge article

Should "Stock Market Regulation in the United States" and "U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission" be merged?:

  • NO - DISAGREE: Stock Market Regulation in the United States is done not only by the SEC, but every state has rules and regulations, every states Secretary of State monitors securities, every states Attorney General files lawsuites based on regulations of securities fraud.

State Securities Regulators:

Other regulatory bodies:

The Stock Market Regulation in the United States article needs to be expanded to include these other regulators.

So I vote NO on this one.

WikiDon 08:11, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Agreed - if it becomes a more general article, then it makes sense to have a seperate entry. I'm not too happy with the name (apart from all the Capitals) - it should rather be "Securities regulation in the United States", as the term stock market can be vague, and all regulation will refer to the issuance and trading of securities. Also, in the article there should be a clear distinction between:
  • Government agencies such as the SEC and MSRB
  • Industry organisations such as the NASD and ICMA, that serve as self-regulatory bodies.
  • Commercial stock exchanges such as NYSE & AMEX that have their own internal regulations regarding the companies that list on them
Also, the scope will have to make sense - if it becomes too broad we will have to rename it again to include financial regulation in general. DocendoDiscimus 11:15, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

This article on “Futures Trading” talks about this topic in more depth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alipapa123 (talk • contribs) 04:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

How is Chair selected?

Does the President appoint the Chair (as per article) or do the Commissioners elect him/her? - Ted Wilkes 19:31, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

The President appoints the chair. Accordingly, if the President disagrees with an SEC chairman, he/she theoretically could appoint a new chair from among the remaining 4 commissioners (with the old chair becoming a "normal" commissioner). But since the chairman has a 5 year term as a commissioner, the President can't actually remove a chairman from the SEC during that term (absent cause) -- though (as I said), the chair doesn't necessarily have to remain chair. That the SEC chairman resigns at the start of a new administration is tradition, not a requirement. [[User:Epstein's Mother|]] (talk) 16:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Ungrammatical text fragment removed

Dear fellow editors: On 7 March 2006 I deleted the following ungrammatical text that had been inserted by an anonymous user near the end of the main article:

the SEC regulates gave Congress the power to regulate stock comissions as well

I'm not sure what the user was trying to say. The phrase "the SEC regulates gave Congress the power [ . . . ] " makes no sense. I would guess the writer meant that "Congress gave the SEC the power to regulate stock commissions" or something to that effect. Yours, Famspear 15:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Mission Statement

I removed the following sentence added by User:Noble Element. Fred Hsu 04:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

<blockquote>On December 23, 2005, Chairman Chris Cox elminated the words “Since its inception in 1934", "Honest", and "Integrity” from the Mission Statement of the SEC. http://www.faulkingtruth.com/Articles/Investing101/1061.html </blockquote>

And this external link: http://www.faulkingtruth.com/Articles/Investing101/1061.html ''2005 Change in Mission Statement'

Fred-
I don't understand why this reference was removed? I believe this 1st change in the SEC Mission statement after almost 60 years is profound. Why not help me to properly document the change?
Here's a way to document the link that refers only to the Government website material:
On December 23, 2005, Chairman Chris Cox elminated the words “Since its inception in 1934", "Honest", and "Integrity” from the Mission Statement of the SEC
http://sec.gov/about/secpar/secpar2005.pdf#sec1 on Page 4, 5 Paragraph, 1st Sentence
"The SEC’s mission is to protect investors; to maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets; and to facilitate capital formation."
Please advise at your convenience Fred, Thanks JAC. 05:10, 10 July 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.41.128 (talk • contribs) and by 05:13, 10 July 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noble Element (talk • contribs)
If you look at the cited article (faulkingtruth.com), you'll see that Mr. Cox was NOT the one who made the changes (or, at least, all of them - he's only been Chairman for what, a year?). The article does provide links to ORIGINAL sources; in my opinion those should be used EXCLUSIVELY, since the faulkingtruth.com page is rather long and doesn't get the matter exactly right when it starts (the part you quote).
As to whether this is newsworthy or not, I think at most the wikipedia article should say something like "In 200x, the stated mission of the SEC was whatever; by 2005 (or whenever), this had been changed to whatever." And provide two links so that the reader can see for him/herself. John Broughton 14:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Broughton completely. Fred Hsu 01:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't get it. Integrity is mentioned all over the place, right before and right after the mission statement. It's just that they reduced the statement itself to about 10 words. And what's the difference between "fair" and "honest"? Can you be fair and not honest? (And while we're at it, can you protect investors and have a fair market without market integrity? Aren't these all essentially synonyms?) This seems to me to be scandal-mongering. Epstein's Mother 05:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Misc

I feel that this should be deleted since it states the exact same thing at the beginning. --Nubbie44 02:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Redirect???

Should SEC really redirect here? there are plenty other SEC's and some may question whether it would be better if SEC redirected to the disambiguation page.

Googolme* 23:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The U.S. SEC is the oldest and best known of all the "SECs" in the world. It's a bit like "FBI" or "CIA" or even "FSA" (in the UK) -- even in other countries, the default is you mean the American version. Epstein's Mother (talk) 03:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. This is the SEC. Kingturtle (talk) 04:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The first thing that pops into my mind when I hear "SEC" is the Southeastern Conference.
At the very least, "SEC" should go straight to the disambiguation page. Frankly, IMO, it's POV to redirect it straight to this. toll_booth (talk) 12:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
If you google "SEC", the first and second references are to the Securities and Exchange Commission. You don't get to the Southeastern Conference until the 3rd reference, and that's with US Google. Run the search in a different country and the Southeastern Conference will be far further down the list. Epstein's Mother (talk) 14:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Short selling probes

Are we going to add information about the short selling probes? [1]

Pierre.cardoone (talk) 03:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Restrictions on non-US investments for US citizens

I would like more information on how the SEC rules effectively restrict US citizens from directly investing in non-US mutual funds. Is this information elsewhere on Wikipedia, and can it be added to this article? simonthebold (talk) 14:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a pretty narrow issue. Also, there are no restrictions on US citizens directly investing in non-US mutual funds. US citizens can call up a foreign mutual fund and invest at any time. The prohibition is on non-SEC registered mutual funds calling up or otherwise soliciting investors in the United States (not US citizens per se). And, on this, the SEC is hardly unique. That's generally the rule around the world. Epstein's Mother (talk) 19:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
As I understand it the reason why most non-US mutual funds are not available to US "persons" (as they tend to be termed) is that the either the SEC or IRS require reporting of returns in a specialized way that most non-US providers don't provide. The SEC then exerts enormous pressure on the "foreign" provider through their dollar banking links to comply with US legislation. This results in most non-US providers refusing to deal with US-citizens. I would really like to understand the reasons for this and get more info. simonthebold (talk) 23:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I found the following quote here "One nasty feature of US tax law, however, is the treatment of non-SEC-registered mutual funds as PFICs"
It seems like a government policy to restrict any investment in non-US investment funds (to me). simonthebold (talk) 00:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
The latter are tax law issues, and don't touch on the SEC. (Perhaps something to bring up under the IRS, but not the SEC.) On the former (SEC filing requirements), this is not unique to the SEC, are a disclosure and accounting issue, and are not a prohibition on US citizens investing abroad. (Saying non-US providers don't provide this information is the same as saying that providers in other countries operating under different regulatory requirements adhere to those requirements rather than the regulations in the US. It's the same everywhere.) Epstein's Mother (talk) 18:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
No its Section 7(d) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 as implemented by SEC. See here. simonthebold (talk) 00:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
The default under Section 7(d) is that mutual funds be organized in the U.S., but that section explicitly allows the SEC to provide an exemption to foreign mutual funds. The SEC is more than willing to provide such an exemption, but only if the foreign fund is registered with the SEC. (As a practical matter, adhering to Section 7(d) is not problematic -- all you have to do is create a shell company in Delaware and have the mutual fund structured under that shell.) The much more difficult proposition is registering with the SEC, since the SEC's disclosure requirements are far stricter than most countries'. But the overarching point is the same; most countries require mutual funds and investment advisors operating in their territory to be regulated by the local regulator. The only difference here is that the SEC is a stricter regulator. (And the original point is that this is a prohibition on U.S. investors from investing in foreign funds. That's not the case. The prohibition is on foreign funds soliciting U.S. investors unless they are registered with the SEC.) Epstein's Mother (talk) 18:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Your right we've got off the point a bit. Perhaps the question is why do so many of the worlds non-US collective investment schemes expressly exclude US persons from buying their funds? It appears that US persons are not forbidden to buy them by US law so why do so many funds exclude themselves from such a potentially large market? Many fund houses will accept business from almost any country, but exclude US persons? see here simonthebold (talk) 10:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
The reason for that is actually pretty straight-forward. The SEC takes a very broad interpretation of what constitutes solicitation and investment advice, and has a very broad (some would say extra-territorial) approach to jurisdiction. Many other jurisdictions do not. While a US investor is free to invest in mutual funds in almost any country (Cuba, North Korea, and a few others excluded), a foreign mutual fund explicitly (or even implicitly) offering its services to US investors may easily find itself violating US securities laws. Since the SEC takes the position that a website offering investment services is a solicitation, a website accessible in the US that does not explicitly exclude US investors can be construed to be offering investment services to US investors, which is illegal in the US if you are not registered with the SEC. Since most non-US mutual funds don't want to take the risk of falling afoul of US laws, they exclude US investors preemptively. Epstein's Mother (talk) 01:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
This seems to fit together now. The SEC controls access to US investors by its broad interpretation of soliciting for investment. US tax law treats non-US funds punitively. Reporting requirements make it hard comply with US tax law an therefore make investing in non-US mutual funds a headache for any US investor. The effect of these factors is that it not practical for most US persons to invest in non-US funds. The overall result is a protectionist regime for US mutual funds.
Thanks for your input on these issues. Perhaps some of this could be incorporated into this article? Or do you think a separate article addressing these points is warranted? simonthebold (talk) 09:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I think you've got it reversed. US investors actively invest in foreign securities, markets and funds. Approximately 2/3 of all US investors who invest in equities hold foreign securities (mostly through funds). The SEC controls access to the US market, not to US investors per se (who are free to, and do, invest abroad). In order for something to be protectionist, it has to be discriminatory, and SEC regulations are not -- foreign funds are not required to adhere to any additional requirements than are domestic funds. It's just that the US standards are the strictest in the world, with the most aggressive inspections regime, and most non-US funds would just prefer to avoid the oversight. (After all, it's my understanding that 85% of all UK firms are not inspected by the UK FSA. Going from that to a system where SEC inspectors show up at your door with no warning is a shock to most.) Basically, the SEC is saying that if you want to play in their market, you have to play by their rules. (And if an advertisement isn't a solicitation, what is?) That doesn't seem protectionist. (I've got no views on the tax issue, though I suspect if it were discriminatory, it would be brought before the WTO. The difference may be that because the US has world-wide taxation for its citizens, the IRS has a default treatment for foreign earnings unless that foreign mutual fund sets up some kind of withholding or reporting system, which most firms wouldn't bother to do for the odd US investor.) Epstein's Mother (talk) 14:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I think you're presenting the US regime in a slightly benign light here. As you noted the SEC has and extra-terratorial approach to enforcement. How exactly does it enforce its decisions against non-US investment providers who fall foul of US legislation?
The UK and Europe has well regulated and mature 'mutual fund' markets but exclude US persons for the reasons discussed. Effectively, US laws/policies stop non-US funds from being purchased by US persons. Possibly this is an artifact of legislation intended to provide only protection for US investors, or possibly the vested interests that promoted and lobbied for the creation of the current regime knew what the net effect would be. You mention 2/3rds of investors; I wonder how many US investors hold international securities directly or via non-US registered mutual funds? I suspect not many. There is an industry devoted to providing access to these funds and investments via trusts and offshore shell companies that serves wealthy US investors.
One of the main issues (which may not be appropriate to discus here) is the naure of the US tax system taxing gains annually, rather than when funds are sold. This system has a vested interest in keeping US investors under the control of US regulators. I suspect this is the main reasons the de facto trade barriers exist.
I still feel some of these issues should be reflected in the article. Do you agree? simonthebold (talk) 15:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I deleted the additional criticism language because the issue being discussed (broad interpretation of what constitutes solicitation) is not at all unusual. While many countries are less broad, many are just as broad or even more so. Epstein's Mother (talk) 19:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Epstein's Mother (talk • contribs)

comment

Disclose anything before the quarterly SEC filings. It's up to the investor to do their homework on the company. 68.33.44.39 (talk) 01:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup of typos needed; suggestion re description of SEC

{{editsemiprotected}} The opening sentence reading "... having primary responsibility for enforcing the federal securities laws and regulating the securities industry/stock market." should be changed to "...and regulating the securities industry, the nation's stock and options exchanges, and other electronic securities markets." Also, there is a punctuation error after "Currently the SEC commissioners are;" which should be a colon not a semicolon. There are other similar errors throughout -- this article could use a grammatical and syntactical check.Aseca21 (talk) 11:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

checkY I've completed the requested edit, and also changed a couple of other minor things, but the article doesn't look fully MOS-compatible throughout. I'll give it some TLC if I have time later. haz (talk) 12:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Current Annual Salary

The current annual salary of a chairman at the SEC is $160,000 U.S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronewirl (talk • contribs) 12:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC) [citation needed]

I don't think that's right. Isn't there a locality adjustment that does in there? Epstein's Mother (talk) 16:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Chairs and Commissioners

I added a new section called Commission members at the top, to emphasize the current commissioners. Further down, there is a section on Chairs and Commissioners, apparently to mention a separate article listing all the commissioners and former commissioners of the SEC. This section could be included with the earlier section. It seems somewhat awkwardly worded, though. Anyone interested in this idea should compare this article with Federal Communications Commission, Federal Election Commission and Federal Trade Commission articles. These articles provide more information about the current commissioners in the main article about the commissions. --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Look at CFTC too, same situation, article and separate list of commissioners. --DThomsen8 (talk) 17:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Not so!

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2001 created the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) as a consequence of the Enron Scandal. Not so, but perhaps the editor does have something worthwhile in mind. --DThomsen8 (talk) 11:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

SABs, SLBs, EITFs, FRRs, Regulation S-X

I noticed that Staff Accounting Bulletins (SABs), Staff Legal Bulletins (SLBs), and Financial Reporting Releases (FRRs), and Emerging Issues Task Force (EITFs) are not or poorly mentioned. Am I missing something? If not, can I be bold and enter some information about them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.185.66.249 (talk) 19:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to clarify that I asked the above question, but had not logged in at the time. sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 21:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

SEC employees watch porn at work

This was added to, and then removed from the article. It's getting a lot of media coverage:

Many SEC employees who earn six figure salaries spend much of their time at work watching pornography.<ref>[http://abcnews.go.com/WN/sec-pornography-employees-spent-hours-surfing-porn-sites/story?id=10451508 SEC and Pornography: Workers Spent Hours on Porn Sites Instead of Stopping Fraud], ABC News, April 22, 2010</ref><ref>[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/04/22/ap/business/main6423376.shtml SEC Staffers Watched Porn As Economy Crashed], CBS News, April 23, 2010</ref>

71.182.218.120 (talk) 12:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

None of the referenced news stories say "many who earn six-figure salaries" spend "much of their time at work" watching porn. It only says a few, over a five year period, were busted, including a few who "could earn salaries up to" six figures. In addition, this is not newsworthy. A review of the inspector general's reports of any government agency (as well as a review of the internet usage of any large private organization) would yield the same results. This issue is in the news now (and not in February when the report was first released, or last year when the report was released last year, or the year before, etc. etc.) solely because the SEC is suing Goldman Sachs. It would be very odd to include this bit in an encyclopedic article about an agency but not, for example, actually anything about the agency's recent regulatory initiatives, budget debates about self-funding, the structure of the staffing by division, differences in philosophy among the political parties re securities regulation, etc. Epstein's Mother (talk) 22:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
I knew it was something of a risk to put it in that section. After all, no one has proved their porn obsession had anything to do with the crisis or has made specific charges saying this. I knew there was some connection with the Goldman Sachs investigation but I wasn't sure how to present it. Anyway, it sounded important enough to me, and I tried to be careful in the way I worded it, sticking with facts as much as possible.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Even calling it a "porn obsession" is a little ridiculous. You're talking about a handful of people over a 5 year period of time (some of whom were outside contractors) and an agency of 3500 people, all of whom were caught by the SEC's own IT filters. Of course it had nothing to do with the crisis -- nobody has said it did. Read the newspaper accounts closely, watching for weasel words (i.e., "senior" lawyer, without definining what "senior" means, salaries "up to", etc.), and particularly about why the news came out now. This is just another example of the Potomac Two-Step; one side of a political debate trying to undermine another side by painting them all as pervs or crooks. Epstein's Mother (talk) 05:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Just a few minutes ago, I heard Mike Huckabee say on the radio that the investigation has finally wrapped up (so much for the news being outdated) but no one will be fired. To which he asked the question: "What do you have to do to get fired?" I guess that settles that. You can't put it here if no one was fired.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 13:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Guidance documents published by the commission....???

--222.67.213.118 (talk) 09:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Commonwealth of Australia and other foreign Country Administrators are listed

This article needs to explain why one might find their "Country" listed on the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Perhaps explain exactly the relationship between the country and this corporation.

For example, Australia (Commonwealth of Australia) seems to be registered with a CIK # 0000805157 http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0000805157&type=&dateb=&owner=exclude&count=40 130.56.90.32 (talk) 22:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Why would the article need to explain that? Those are just Australian government bonds. Countries that regulate bond markets typically require some kind of disclosure from the issuer of those bonds, even if the bonds are sold by a government. That kind of "explanation" might belong in an article about government bonds, but this isn't unusual for a securities regulator. Epstein's Mother (talk) 05:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Simple question

Why does this article make not one reference to Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act ? --Jabbi (talk) 22:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure anyone has yet finished reading it.Epstein's Mother (talk) 05:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
The authors themselves probably haven't but you only need to point out that Title IX is about SEC. --Jabbi (talk) 14:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Enforcement actions list

This list of all SEC actions 2009-2012 (apparently), all or most footnoted to SEC notices, feels imbalanced in the article to me. Can they be summarized or referenced in combination? I like more detail but think this has gone substantially overboard. Swliv (talk) 08:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I understand your point and will combine these cases (which represent only the significant SEC actions in 2009-2012) in some fashion to make it consistent with the policy. This may take a little time to do properly so please bear with me. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Formerausa (talk • contribs) 17:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
No hurry, though I would say a 75% reduction in volume wouldn't be unreasonable from my quick eyeing of the list. I'm open to being convinced otherwise (and to do more than eye it), but that's my starting point.
A couple of style points. I've added a single colon to the beginning of your paragraph, which indents it, and two to mine which indents mine again. Protocol, pretty much. Second, you didn't "sign" your paragraph with four tildes (~~~~) so it was "auto-signed". In future, indents and tildes recommended. A personal preference is for a "blue" rather than a "red" user name. Just click on your "Former..." and create a user page as brief or extensive as you like and save it; then it'll be "blue" (no politics implied).
Thanks for your response. All best. Swliv (talk) 00:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
While my intervention has for the moment maybe halted additions to the section, I've now done a quick measurement and find that the section comprises well over half the whole SEC article. This is for a slice of the activity (enforcement isn't everything) of less than three years of the agency's 70+ year life. So my 75% stands as a conservative estimate of how much reduction I think this section should see. I came here thinking if no reduction had been done I'd consider taking it all out and let some condensed part come back as it did (within my limited non-exclusive editorial power scope). Now instead I'm expressing this more settled negative opinion, with wholesale removal as an option I'll still be considering.
Along with my quick volume measure, I did cast an eye at the content. It's not bad content. I've seen there was some effort to set up a free-standing article with the material and the effort was rebuffed. (See here for my comment and here for the rejection.) I don't know the answer and would be glad to look at some alternative proposal. Unfortunately, looking at the rejection, I'm led back to my wholesale-deletion option. Undigested and so voluminous, this block is not appropriate here after being rejected as a free-standing article, I'm beginning to conclude. Was there any sense a better free-standing article (more summary, less list) would fly, and be within production capability? Something in that direction I think we have to consider. Cheers. 06:35
ps I checked out the rejection here. It's not too detailed or impressive and does recommend trying to merge the material into an existing article. I don't want to be part of a Catch-22 circuitous pass-on. I'm not changed in my feelings about the appropriateness of the material in this article, just less comfortable with my argument above reliant upon the rejection. I have to leave it here for now. I think my terminal question is still a good starting point, just taking the rejection out as in any way helpful to the framing of it or of the answer. Swliv (talk) 06:48, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
We are still working on a summary and will not add any more until it is complete. Formerausa (talk) 18:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
"We" makes me a little curious; but thanks. The idea of a fait accompli with lots invested in it also makes me a little nervous, in light of what we currently have. (You have and presumably are putting in lots of good work but so far it hasn't found a comfortable place in the encyclopedia. I'll leave it to your judgment whether you want to "test" your summary ideas a little here first. Cheers. Swliv (talk) 23:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Ha, "we" is myself and my assistant.Formerausa (talk) 15:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

No consolidation/summary/deletions done so far. Swliv (talk) 04:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion for paring down article

This article is over the limit, at 114K. I suggest paring it down by moving the section List of Major SEC enforcement actions -- which is barely readable -- to a new stand-alone article, with a bare references to it here.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned references in U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "bloomberg1":

  • From Carl Hoecker: Schmidt, Robert (January 25, 2013). "SEC Said to Back Hire of U.S. Capitol Police Inspector General". Bloomberg. Retrieved February 18, 2013.
  • From Bernard Madoff: "Ruth Madoff Says Her $62 Million 'Unrelated' to Fraud (Update2) - Bloomberg.com". Bloomberg.com<!. March 2, 2009. Retrieved April 26, 2009.
  • From Daniel M. Gallagher: Hamilton, Jesse (April 21, 2011). "White House Said to Nominate Daniel Gallagher as Casey's Successor at SEC". Bloomberg. Retrieved March 1, 2013.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:18, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Addressed.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Ohio Has Problems

Lender seeks to foreclose on La Place shopping center, at Beachwood Place mall's doorstep | http://cleveland.com http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2013/08/lender_seeks_to_foreclose_on_l.html … — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.14.218 (talk) 18:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

This sentence makes no sense

The second sentence of the article is "The main reason for the creation of the SEC was to regulate the stock market of 1940, the Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002, and the Credit Rating Agency Reform Act of 2006." I suspect that some words between "market" and "of 1940" got dropped. JHobson3 (talk) 16:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:15, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:24, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Archive 1
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:U.S._Securities_and_Exchange_Commission/Archive_1&oldid=1137277137"