美国证交会遭遇金融巨头监管难题

针对惯犯的判决

    实际上，有一种解决方案很实用，两年前我就在一起类似的案件中提到过，当时，它也涉及到高盛集团。如果花旗集团和其他金融机构违反了它们在历史和解协议中同意的事项，证券交易委员会可以诉诸法律来解决问题。但是证券交易委员会并没有对这些违规行为进行跟踪。委员会发言人约翰•耐斯特称，委员会起诉这些涉事的大企业并不会获得任何有价值的结果。耐斯特说，如果一家大型企业承认它在不同的分支机构犯了同样的错误（比如先后在波士顿和费城分公司），因为涉及到两个不同的当事人，法官可能会当作两起独立的案件来处理。他表示，鉴于法官考虑问题的方式，要想证明这些大机构正在进行违规行为是不可能的事情。

    然而在11月9日花旗集团案听证会上，拉科夫法官表示，对处理屡次违规案件来说，将这些违规行为诉诸法庭审理是一种既高效又节约成本的方式，并且最终有可能提起刑事诉讼。但是，拉科夫称：“过去十年里，尽管有些大型公司多次违反之前的禁令，但证券交易委员会从未就此对任何大型公司提起过诉讼。”如果有哪位联邦法官表示，应该通过诉讼对大型企业追责是一种可行的方案，为何不尝试一下呢？

质疑和解协议

    尽管证券交易委员会辩解称，和解协议的经济效益，但它尚未就出台包含更宽泛、更强势要求的和解条款作出回应。采用这种途径有助于让证券交易委员会找到治本的办法，而不是像打地鼠那样疲于应对。拉科夫法官在11月9日的听证会上询问花旗集团和解条款是否仅仅只是为了“装点门面”。

    证券交易委员会追求的另一个立场是获得公司对于和解的承认。证券交易委员会前主席亚瑟•莱维特在12月份接受彭博电视台（Bloomberg TV）采访时称，尽管将来这些公司可能什么都不会承认，但“还是会有一些公司会认错”。当然，想要达到这样的目标，证券交易委员会首先必须相信存在这种可能性。

交由法官来处理

    夏皮罗于周二在国会称，证券交易委员会将会比以往更多地诉诸法律来解决问题。我们欢迎这样的进展。因为，虽然对证券交易委员会来说单个案件诉讼比和解的成本更高，但让公司和公司高管走上法庭、在最高的层面接受问责更能够让问题企业引以为戒，那么长远来看，成本其实更低。

证券交易委员会资金自主？

    证券交易委员会表示，受预算制约，他们不能完全放开手脚。委员会发言人耐斯特表示，他们不仅技术已经老旧过时，去年春天还被迫中止为法庭案件雇佣专家证人，同时缩减了旅费以避免预算超支。两年前，罗彻斯特大学（University of Rochester）校长乔尔•塞利格曼在某期《纽约时报》专栏中就提出了解决资金问题的建议：允许证券交易委员会按照联邦存款保险公司（FDIC）的要求，自主确定资金需求。

Judgments against repeat offenders

    There is one practical solution (which I pointed out two years ago in a similar case involving Goldman Sachs). The SEC could start taking Citi and other financial institutions to court when they violate injunctions they have agreed to in previous settlements. But the SEC doesn't track such violations and spokesperson John Nester says nothing worthwhile would happen if the regulator brought the cases involving large firms back to court anyway. If a large firm commits the same wrong act in its different operations (like the Boston and then the Philadelphia office), a judge would treat them as two separate incidents because two different people were involved, Nester says. Because of the way incidents are viewed by judges, showing an ongoing violation at these large institutions isn't possible, he says.

    But at a November 9 hearing in the Citi case, Judge Rakoff argued that bringing these violations before the court is an efficient and cost effective way to handle repeat offenses, and could result in criminal prosecutions. Yet "in the last ten years [the SEC hasn't] brought any contempt proceedings against any large institutions, even though they have repeatedly violated previous injunctions," Rakoff said. If a federal judge is saying it's a viable option to hold the largest firms accountable, why not determine who is right by at least giving it a try?

 Giving settlements some fighting words

    While the SEC has defended its settlements based on the dollars and cents it's bringing in, the agency has not responded to the idea of coming up with settlement terms that have broader and stronger requirements. Taking this route could also help put an end to the SEC's whack-a-mole-like approach. At the November 9 hearing, Rakoff questioned whether the proposed Citi settlement terms were merely "window dressing."

    Another angle for the agency to pursue is getting some admissions in settlements. Former SEC Chair Arthur Levitt told Bloomberg TV in December that while companies in the future may not admit to everything, "some of these companies are going to admit some things." But to make that happen, of course, the SEC must believe that it is possible.

Taking it to the judge

    On Tuesday, Schapiro told Congress that the SEC is going to court more than it had been. This is a welcome move because while it's more costly for the SEC to litigate (rather than settle) individual cases, using the courtroom to hold companies and individuals at the highest levels accountable could improve memory retention among problematic firms, which just might be less costly over the long term.

An independently funded SEC?

    The SEC says its budget is hampering its ability to act more boldly. Not only is its technology way out of date, last spring the regulator had to stop hiring expert witnesses for court cases and skimp on airfare to stay within its budget, Nester says. One way to address the funding issue would be to allow the SEC to determine its own funding requirements along the lines of the FDIC, a suggestion University of Rochester President Joel Seligman made in a New York Times op-ed two years ago.