• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Financial Transparency?

wastepanel

Muse
W
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
572
http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2010/07/28/sec-says-new-finreg-law-exempts-public-disclosure/

Under a little-noticed provision of the recently passed financial-reform legislation, the Securities and Exchange Commission
no longer has to comply with virtually all requests for information releases from the public, including those filed under the Freedom of Information Act
Click to expand...

Let's look at this objectively. It is Fox Business Network that was denied, and it is Fox Business Network that is only running this story currently. I'm sure others will pick it up soon as it would be appalling to be scooped on your own story. I'm also interested to see if and when the story changes.

LET'S DISCUSS THIS ON FACTS ONLY WITHOUT ASSUMING FOX BUSINESS NETWORK IS DISTORTING THE FACTS.
 
wastepanel said:
LET'S DISCUSS THIS ON FACTS ONLY WITHOUT ASSUMING FOX BUSINESS NETWORK IS DISTORTING THE FACTS.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that's a safe assumption regardless of the news source. Can we see the actual provision that is being referred to for ourselves and what it says?
 
wastepanel said:
LET'S DISCUSS THIS ON FACTS ONLY WITHOUT ASSUMING FOX BUSINESS NETWORK IS DISTORTING THE FACTS.
Click to expand...

Let's discuss the shape of the Earth without assuming that Flat-Earthers are wrong.

Fox Business Network is not entitled to any such assumptions.
 
Either they added such a provision or they didn't. And either it was used to say "Denied!" to Fox or it wasn't.
 
I would not agree that this was a "little-noticed" provision. It seems that many (perhaps most) in the financial world were aware of it. Seems overblown as an issue.

(Title IV, Sec. 404, (10) Public Information Exception)
 
Last edited:
After sifting through the article, I have found this:

The SEC cited the new law Tuesday in a FOIA action brought by FOX Business Network. Steven Mintz, founding partner of law firm Mintz & Gold LLC in New York, lamented what he described as “the backroom deal that was cut between Congress and the SEC to keep the SEC’s failures secret. The only losers here are the American public.”
Click to expand...

IN MY OPINION...

It looks like Fox sued the SEC, DOT, and Federal Reserve in February 2009 for investigation records into ponzi schemes and over the use of the Tarp funds. How these two are related is beyond me. It could be that these are 2 separate cases, 1 against the SEC and the other against the other 2). The court ruled that the Treasury Department to comply to the Freedom of Information Request.

It looks like the SEC filed a brief citing this statute and put Fox on notice that requests would be denied under this provision. How far does the FOIA go?
 
Last edited:
Augustine said:
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h4173/text

or

http://docs.house.gov/rules/finserv/111_hr4173_finsrvcr.pdf
(p. 532)
Click to expand...

Jumpin Jebus on a pogo stick, thank you. When you don't know what the damn thing is actually called, it is really hard to find.

eta:
‘(10) PUBLIC INFORMATION EXCEPTION-
‘(A) IN GENERAL- The Commission, the Council, and any other department, agency, or self-regulatory organization that receives information, reports, documents, records, or information from the Commission under this subsection, shall be exempt from the provisions of section 552 of title 5, United States Code, with respect to any such report, document, record, or information. Any proprietary information of an investment adviser ascertained by the Commission from any report required to be filed with the Commission pursuant to this subsection shall be subject to the same limitations on public disclosure as any facts ascertained during an examination, as provided by section 210(b) of this title.
‘(B) PROPRIETARY INFORMATION- For purposes of this paragraph, proprietary information includes sensitive, non-public information regarding--
‘(i) the investment or trading strategies of the investment adviser;
‘(ii) analytical or research methodologies;
‘(iii) trading data;
‘(iv) computer hardware or software containing intellectual property; and
‘(v) any additional information that the Commission determines to be proprietary.
​

So, on my reading, only information that comes from the Commission to the various agencies are exempt, not everything.
 
Last edited:
:( Sadly, locating the bill is really all I have to offer to this discussion. Well, that and a few newsletters from investment companies in early July discussing this change.
 
I presume this applies only during investigation, and not if and when charges are brought and it goes to trial?

Sounds reasonable to me. Why should proprietary financial information be subject to public disclosure simply because an investigation was launched? It sounds akin to keeping info provided to a grand jury top secret.

Or do I misunderstand?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom