Tag Archives: SEC

SEC’s New ESG Rule Hurts America’s Small Farms and Ranches, by Gabriella Hoffman

The ESG movement and the medical totalitarians share the same goal: kill the humans they hate (check out the next article, too). From Gabriella Hoffman at realclearenergy.org:

As small farming and ranching operations struggle to bounce back from the COVID-19 pandemic and supply-chain disruptions, the federal government is preparing to throw another hurdle their way.

In March, the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC), a governmental outfit purporting to “promote a market environment that is worthy of the public’s trust,” proposed a new Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) rule. Billed as the “Enhanced and Standardization of Climate-Related Disclosures for Investors,” it would require registrants who do business with small operators “to include certain climate-related disclosures” called Scope 3 Emissions—indirect (upstream or downstream) emissions occurring in the value chain of the reporting company.

Farmers and ranchers, however, aren’t public companies nor “registrants” reporting to the agency. But the aforementioned provision will adversely affect their operations and impose steep costs and liabilities.

First, the agency’s new rule is unenforceable as it cannot regulate non-financial goals like ESG—including Scope 3 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions goals. Why? Political goals fall outside their purview.

Continue reading→

Doug Casey on Insider Trading… Why Politicians Can Do it and You Can’t

Those who write the laws can exempt themselves, either de jure or de facto, and they do. From Doug Casey at internationalman.com:

Politicians

International Man: What exactly is insider trading? Is it inherently unethical?

Doug Casey: The term insider trading is nebulous and as open to arbitrary interpretation as the Internal Revenue Code. A brief definition is to “to trade on material, non-public information.” That sounds simple enough, but in its broadest sense, it means you are a potential criminal for attempting to profit from researching a company beyond its public statements.

Is the use of insider information ethical? The government says, “No!” I say, “Absolutely, whenever the data is honestly gained, and no confidence is betrayed by disclosing or using it.” The whole concept of inside information is a floating abstraction, a witch hunter’s dream, and a bonanza for government lawyers looking to take scalps.

When the SEC prosecutes someone, it can cost millions of dollars in legal fees to defend against them. And as with most regulatory law, concepts of ethics, justice, and property rights never even enter the equation. Instead, it’s a question of arbitrary legalities.

Whether someone is prosecuted of insider trading is largely a question of who he is. A maverick researcher and a powerful government official will tend to get very different treatments. It’s also a question of the psychology and motives of the prosecutor. Insider trading is generally a non-crime that can be used in a Kafkaesque manner by upward-mobile prosecutors.

Continue reading→

$20 Million Isn’t Much, by Eric Peters

The fine recently meted out to Elon Musk is similar to the meager fines meted out to banks and bankers stemming from the financial crisis. The fines are meager for a reason: the perpetrators are politically connected. From Eric Peters at theburningplatform.com:

If you’re a billionaire.

Count it out. One billion dollars is one thousand million dollars. If you have one thousand million dollars, $20 million is of the same consequence as losing a $20 under a sofa cushion is to the rest of us.

Elon Musk is reportedly worth somewhere in the vicinity of $23 billion. For him, the  $20 million fine imposed by the SEC for fraud amounts to the same as losing a pennybehind the sofa cushions for the rest of us.

So, effectively, a slap on the wrist – for fraud. For actually causing harm.

Contrast the kid-glove treatment meted out to Elon with the NKVD-style inquisition visited upon Martha Stewart – a productive woman whose businesses didn’t have a taxpayer pickpocket division.

Continue reading

Saudi Arabia’s PIF and SoftBank Not Interested in Tesla Buyout, by Wolf Richter

Did Elon Musk lie, and therefore open him to civil and perhaps criminal liability, when he said Tesla had secured funding for a buyout that would take Tesla private? From Wolf Richter at wolfstreet.com:

Two often-cited suspects are axed. So where’s the “secured” funding supposed to come from?

The whole scheme kicked off when Tesla CEO Elon Musk tweeted during trading hours that he was “considering” taking Tesla private, “Funding secured,” which caused the already ludicrously overvalued shares to spike. Later he added, “Investor support is confirmed.” But no details, no names, no tidbits, not even a tease. Two days earlier, he’d tweeted that “even Hitler was shorting Tesla stock.”

We can brush off the Hitler tweet as just one more Musk idiocy gone awry, but “Funding secured” and “Investor support is confirmed” are big-ass phrases for a public-company CEO discussing a buyout that would be valued at $72 billion.

Now some folks, including those at the SEC’s San Francisco office, are wanting to know where exactly this money is going to come from – and if funding was even remotely “secured.”

The Tesla true believers instantly figured that a deal had already been worked out, either with SoftBank or with Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund (PIF), or with both, or whatever.

Turns out, it’s not going to be SoftBank, and it’s not going to be the Saudis, either. They’re not interested in creating the magic to pull this off.

Reuters reported today that a source “familiar with PIF’s strategy,” said that the fund was not, as Reuters put it, “currently getting involved in any funding process for Tesla’s take-private deal.”

PIF had made headlines recently when it came out that it had acquired a stake in Tesla of just below 5% by buying its shares (TSLA) in the market. None of this money went to Tesla. It went to Tesla shareholders that wanted to get out.

PIF has also heavily invested in other tech companies in the US, including a $45-billion investment in the Vision Fund, a venture capital fund that SoftBank, a Japanese holding conglomerate, has put together by pouring $100 billion into it.

To continue reading: Saudi Arabia’s PIF and SoftBank Not Interested in Tesla Buyout

As Madoff Airs on TV, Two Anonymous Whistleblowers Are Pounding on the SEC’s Door Again, by Pam Martens and Russ Martens

From Pam Martens and Russ Martens at wallstreetonparade.com:

Last night ABC began its two-part series on the Bernie Madoff fraud. Viewers will be reminded about how investment expert, Harry Markopolos, wrote detailed letters to the SEC for years, raising red flags that Bernie Madoff was running a Ponzi scheme – only to be ignored by the SEC as Madoff fleeced more and more victims out of their life savings.

Today, there are two equally erudite scribes who have jointly been flooding the SEC with explosive evidence that some Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) that trade on U.S. stock exchanges and are sold to a gullible public, may be little more than toxic waste dumped there by Wall Street firms eager to rid themselves of illiquid securities.

The two anonymous authors have one thing going for them that Markopolos did not. They are represented by a former SEC attorney, Peter Chepucavage, who was also previously a managing director in charge of Nomura Securities’ legal, compliance and audit functions. We spoke to Chepucavage by phone yesterday. He confirmed that two of his clients authored the series of letters. Chepucavage said further that these clients have significant experience in trading ETFs and data collection involving ETFs.

Throughout their letters, the whistleblowers use the phrase ETP, for Exchange Traded Product, which includes both ETFs and ETNs, Exchange Traded Notes. In a letter that was logged in at the SEC on January 13, 2016, the whistleblowers compared some of these investments to the subprime mortgage products that fueled the 2008 crash, noting that regulators and economists were mostly blind to that escalating danger as well. The authors wrote:

The vast majority of ETPs have very low levels of assets under management and illiquid trading volumes. Many of these have illiquid underlying assets and a large group of ETPs are based on derivatives that are not backed by physical assets such as stocks, bonds or commodities, but rather swaps or other types of complex contracts. Many of these products may have been designed to take what were originally illiquid assets from the books of operators, bundle them into an ETP to make them appear liquid and sell them off to unsuspecting investors. The data suggests this is evidenced by ETPs that are formed, have enough volume in the early stage of their existence to sell shares, but then barely trade again while still remaining listed for sale. This is reminiscent of the mortgage-backed securities bundles sold previous to the last financial crisis in 2008.”

The authors also note in this same letter that they have been presenting their evidence of “significant red flags” and “fundamental flaws” to the SEC since March 2015 and that the industry has not disputed the evidence. However, disclosures of these risks in the product offerings has not been forthcoming either.

To underscore to the regulators just how serious they are about cleaning up the ETP market, in a cover letter dated March 24, 2015, Chepucavage copied every member of the Financial Stability Oversight Council (F-SOC), the body created under the Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation to monitor financial stability in the U.S., including Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen, U.S. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, and SEC Chair Mary Jo White.

To continue reading: As Madoff Airs on TV, Two Anonymous Whistleblowers Are Pounding on the SEC’s Door Again

SEC Reaches “Appropriate” Settlement With Freddie Mac Execs Who Will Pay Nothing And Receive No Punishment, from Zero Hedge

This story is  basically an entire MBA in how business and government, and especially how government businesses, operate in the 21st century. From zerohedge.com:

Last month, we discussed a government report which showed that, much to the chagrin of a few billionaires and a long line of retail investors who bought the proverbial dip, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac may be destined, by design, by decades of reckless behavior, and by Treasury decree, to be insolvent most of the time. Today, we learned that when it comes to accountability for the executives who helped put the companies in a position whereby receivership became necessary in mid-2008, we can forget about it.

In what was billed as a “high profile” case, the SEC had sought financial and other penalties against three former Freddie Mac executives who allegedly “misled” investors in 2006 by understating the amount of subprime exposure the GSE had on its books while it was simultaneously still sucking up and packaging bad loans. If the SEC allegations are indeed accurate, it’s probably safe to say that using the term “understated” to describe the executives’ misrepresentations is, well, an understatement, because it appears they may have lowballed the figure by a factor of 28. Here’s AP:

According to the SEC, Fannie and Freddie misrepresented their exposure to mortgages for borrowers with weak credit in reports, speeches and congressional testimony.

The SEC said Freddie told investors in late 2006 that it held between $2 billion and $6 billion of subprime mortgages on its books — but its actual subprime holdings were actually closer to $141 billion, or 10 percent of its portfolio in 2006, and $244 billion, or 14 percent, by 2008.
But all’s well that ends in a catastrophic housing market meltdown apparently because as WSJ notes, everyone seems to have gotten a pretty good deal considering their actions may have contributed mightily to the worst financial crisis since The Great Depression:

The civil case, filed in 2011, had alleged that three Freddie executives, including former Chief Executive Officer Richard Syron, knowingly misled investors about the volume of risky mortgages the company purchased as the housing boom came to an end. The SEC had sought financial penalties against the executives and an order barring them from serving as officers and directors at other companies.

Instead, the executives agreed for a limited time not to sign certain reports required by chief executives or finance chiefs and to pay a total of $310,000 to a fund meant to compensate defrauded investors.
The breakdown of the fees is as follows: Richard Syron, $250,000; Donald Bisenius, $50,000; Patricia Cook, $10,000. As you can see, Ms. Cook got off pretty easy, but then again, they all did because they don’t actually have to pay the fines:

Those amounts will be paid by insurance from Freddie Mac that covered the executives.
And no one had to admit to anything of course:

The pact said both sides agreed to the settlement “without conceding the strengths and weaknesses of their respective claims and defenses.”

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-04-15/sec-reaches-appropriate-settlement-freddie-mac-execs-who-will-pay-nothing-and-receiv

To continue reading: SEC Reaches “Appropriate Settlement”