美国证交会遭遇金融巨头监管难题
|
最近，国会决定证券交易委员会的预算，费用由证券交易来确定以填补成本（因此纳税人不需承担费用）。但耐斯特表示，即使预算有所增长，从4月份开始，这些华尔街企业支付的费率将会比2000年的水平还要低。具有讽刺意味的是，国会并没有为证券交易委员会提供全部所需资金，这实际上是在鼓励那些肆意妄为的公司。（耐斯特表示，相比2000年，公司注册费率同样要低很多，而且公司注册费率直接进入国库，尚不能为证券交易委员会所用。） 如果证券交易委员会能够获准自主决定资金需求，就可以对费用结构进行设计，对那些会给证券市场带来更多风险的问题企业征收大公司注册费。因为证券交易委员会需要对这些企业进行额外的监管和诉讼，它们应该为此买单。如果证券交易委员会所需的资金正在筹措或者预计能够筹措到，那么监管者就不能再以资金短缺作为工作不力的借口了。 如果证券交易委员会不愿意执行这些补救办法，就该重新考虑美国俄亥俄州参议员夏罗德•布朗2010年的提议，分拆那些屡次违规的大规模公司。大型银行不仅因为规模过大而难以遵守法规制约，同时也不利于监管。 埃莉诺•布罗斯罕为董事会咨询机构价值联盟及公司治理联盟首席执行官。 译者：李玫晓/汪皓 |
Currently, Congress determines the SEC's budget -- and then fees are set on securities transactions to cover those costs (so taxpayers never pick up the tab). But even with an increase, beginning in April, Wall Street firms (who continue to tax the regulator's resources) will pay a significantly lower rate than they had to pay in 2000, Nester says. The irony is that by not fully funding the SEC, Congress is rewarding the very firms that continue to operate with abandon. (Corporate registration fee rates, which are also significantly lower than in 2000, don't currently even fund SEC activities but instead go to the Treasury, Nester says.) If the SEC were allowed to determine its own funding requirements, the fee structure could be designed to impose larger corporate registration fees on problematic firms that pose a greater risk to the securities markets, ensuring that firms that demand additional oversight and litigation pay for the extra burden they create. Ongoing, predictable funding at the level the SEC says it needs would also eliminate the regulator's excuse that it lacks sufficient funds to do its job well. If the will does not exist to implement these remedies, it is time to reconsider a break-up of the enormous repeat offenders, as U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio proposed in 2010. It means that at least some of the large banks are not only too big to behave, they are also simply too big to be overseen. Eleanor Bloxham is CEO of The Value Alliance and Corporate Governance Alliance . |
