The Securities & Exchange
Commission is the arbiter of what constitutes fraud, though judges
and juries at times will disagree.
The SEC will decide, for example, what constitutes financial no-no’s. Yet when they audit the antics of a Ponzi scheme and can find no fraud, they still have the audacity to rule on others who they claim are fraudsters.
I’ve always said that Ponzi schemes are usually easy to spot because the results being claimed by sponsor's are generally too rosy to be true.
Nevertheless, I cannot see how investors in Ponzi schemes can have their profits “clawed back” by bankruptcy trustees when their investments were given SEC periodic audit approval.
One further example; How can you possibly know that software that purports to be able to select securities for investment is acceptable, when deep research shows this type of research has basic flaws? Similar arbitrary advisories may be deemed ill-advised, as others pass the SEC arbitrary gauntlet. (See the Earl J. Weinreb NewsHole® comments.)
The SEC will decide, for example, what constitutes financial no-no’s. Yet when they audit the antics of a Ponzi scheme and can find no fraud, they still have the audacity to rule on others who they claim are fraudsters.
I’ve always said that Ponzi schemes are usually easy to spot because the results being claimed by sponsor's are generally too rosy to be true.
Nevertheless, I cannot see how investors in Ponzi schemes can have their profits “clawed back” by bankruptcy trustees when their investments were given SEC periodic audit approval.
One further example; How can you possibly know that software that purports to be able to select securities for investment is acceptable, when deep research shows this type of research has basic flaws? Similar arbitrary advisories may be deemed ill-advised, as others pass the SEC arbitrary gauntlet. (See the Earl J. Weinreb NewsHole® comments.)
No comments:
Post a Comment