Securities and Exchange Commission

Subterms

    Latest story

    88 Shares97 Views

    Trump’s Encouragement of Stock Investors Draws Scrutiny

    by

    Was the president manipulating the market with his comments, as his critics say, or reassuring Americans, as the White House maintains?President Trump began his Wednesday with some advice for those rattled by his steep tariffs.“BE COOL,” Mr. Trump told his followers on social media after the markets opened. Just a couple of minutes later he wrote, “THIS IS A GREAT TIME TO BUY!!!”Hours after that, Mr. Trump sent the markets soaring when he paused the levies for 90 days. The S&P 500 climbed several percentage points in a matter of minutes and was on its way to its best day since the recovery of the 2008 financial crisis.Soon after Mr. Trump’s pause, Democrats and government ethics experts asked the perhaps obvious question: Did Mr. Trump give the green light to his followers to cash in on a forthcoming rise in stock prices?“How is this not market manipulation?” Representative Mike Levin, Democrat of California, said on social media, referring to action that is potentially illegal. “If you’re a Trump supporter and you did what he said and you bought, then you did great. On the other hand, if you’re a retiree or a senior or somebody in the middle class over the last few days that didn’t have the tolerance for risk and you decided to sell, you got screwed.”The news of Mr. Trump’s pause came as Jamieson Greer, the U.S. trade representative, was testifying on Capitol Hill. Representative Steven Horsford, Democrat of Nevada, pressed him on Mr. Trump’s aim.“It’s not market manipulation,” Mr. Greer said. “We’re trying to reset the global trading system.”“How have you achieved any of that?” Mr. Horsford asked. “So if it’s not market manipulation, what is it? Who’s benefiting? What billionaire just got richer?”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    More stories

    • 100 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      S.E.C. Declares Memecoins Are Not Subject to Oversight

      by

      The agency said the novelty digital assets were not securities, a month after President Trump issued his own memecoin.The Securities and Exchange Commission said on Thursday that so-called memecoins — novelty digital assets — are not subject to regulatory oversight because they are not considered securities.The determination could have big ramifications for the crypto industry and President Trump, who issued his own memecoin days before his inauguration.The S.E.C.’s policy on memecoins is consistent with the light regulatory approach that Mr. Trump promised to take toward the crypto industry during his campaign.Mr. Trump and his family firmly embraced digital currencies last year by teaming up with a new digital assets company, World Liberty Financial. The memecoin the president introduced during pre-inaugural festivities in January, called $Trump, spurred controversy because it swung wildly in value and generated hefty trading fees for Mr. Trump.The S.E.C.’s policy statement did not refer to Mr. Trump’s memecoin or any other specific digital novelty item. But the commission clearly acknowledged the risk to investors who put money into such products, even as it said it would not regulate them.“Although the offer and sale of memecoins may not be subject to the federal securities laws, fraudulent conduct related to the offer and sale of memecoins may be subject to enforcement action or prosecution by other federal or state agencies,” said the statement, from the S.E.C.’s division of corporation finance.In reaching its conclusion, the S.E.C. employed a nearly century-old Supreme Court decision to determine that a memecoin should not be considered an investment contract and therefore subject to regulatory oversight.Under Gary Gensler, who served as S.E.C. chair under President Joseph R. Biden Jr., the regulator had used that same Supreme Court case to argue that most digital assets are securities and subject to regulation.The S.E.C., apparently worried that traders and speculators could use its rationale to evade regulation, said it would look closely at any new product that tried to label itself a “memecoin.”The agency has moved quickly to dismantle the aggressive approach taken by Mr. Gensler in regulating cryptocurrencies. His enforcement actions angered the crypto industry and led many of its investors to contribute mightily to the campaign of Mr. Trump, who at one time was a crypto critic.Also on Thursday, the S.E.C. officially moved to dismiss its enforcement lawsuit against Coinbase, one of the nation’s largest crypto firms. The S.E.C. also has told a number of crypto companies that it was ending investigations into their activities.The S.E.C. also said in a court filing this week that it was trying to reach a settlement in a civil fraud case it filed against Justin Sun, a crypto investor. Mr. Sun also is an adviser to World Liberty and a significant investor in its digital token. The charges against him do not involve his investment with World Liberty. More

    • 88 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Coinbase Says S.E.C. Will Drop Crypto Lawsuit

      by

      The end of a court fight with the largest U.S. crypto company would be a big win for an industry that financially backed President Trump.The cryptocurrency exchange Coinbase said on Friday that the Securities and Exchange Commission had agreed to drop its lawsuit against the company, lifting a legal cloud over the global crypto industry and signaling a broader retreat by federal regulators.Coinbase, in a post on its website and in a regulatory filing, said it had reached an agreement in principle with the S.E.C. to have the lawsuit withdrawn without any financial penalty. If the S.E.C. confirms the proposed settlement, it would be a remarkable reversal by the agency after years of legal battles against crypto firms.The S.E.C. sued Coinbase, the largest U.S. crypto company, in 2023 on the grounds that the digital currencies sold on its platform constituted unregistered securities that put consumers at risk of financial harm.Any settlement that results in a dismissal of the lawsuit would require S.E.C. approval. A spokesperson for the S.E.C. declined to comment on Coinbase’s announcement.The lawsuit was the most significant of several that the S.E.C. had filed against major crypto companies, arguing that they were operating outside the law. A victory for the government could have threatened the continued operation of Coinbase, a publicly traded company worth about $65 billion, and decimated the broader crypto market.The dismissal would be biggest victory for the crypto industry since President Trump took office last month, promising to end the Biden administration’s regulatory crackdown on crypto under the previous S.E.C. chair, Gary Gensler. And it illustrates the growing influence in Washington of billionaire technology executives, who wrote enormous checks to support Mr. Trump’s campaign, hoping to secure softer regulation.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 75 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Elon Musk and DOGE vs. Regulators

      by

      The billionaire has needled government agencies, armed with potential influence over their budgets. But some of these organizations are also looking into his interests.Elon Musk’s attacks on the agencies that regulate his businesses are raising questions about conflicts of interest.Eric Lee/The New York TimesMusk vs. regulatorsElon Musk remains perhaps the most consequential figure in President-elect Donald Trump’s orbit, with a commission for cutting government spending headed by him and Vivek Ramaswamy — widely known by its acronym, DOGE — promising huge reductions.Federal regulators have become prominent targets for Musk and his allies. But those agencies are continuing to scrutinize the tech billionaire’s interests, raising questions about conflicts.“The SEC is just another weaponized institution doing political dirty work,” Musk posted on X on Thursday, joining a flurry of right-wing attacks on the agency. The impetus for the ire: an appeals court ruling that Nasdaq can’t require diversity on the boards of companies that list on the exchange, a longtime bugbear of conservatives.Ramaswamy wrote on X of the commission: “When an agency like the SEC is so repeatedly & thoroughly embarrassed in federal court for flouting the law, it loses its legitimacy as a law enforcement body.”That comes after Musk took aim at the I.R.S. last month, when he polled his X followers about what to do with the tax authority’s budget. The overwhelming response: “Deleted.”But the S.E.C. is renewing scrutiny of Musk. He disclosed on X that the regulator had given him an offer to settle an inquiry into unspecified charges. A letter from Alex Spiro of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, Musk’s lawyer, claimed that the agency had given them 48 hours to accept or face punishment, as part of an “improperly motivated campaign.” Spiro’s letter also revealed that the commission had reopened an investigation this week into Neuralink, Musk’s brain-implant start-up.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 88 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Bitcoin Price Surges to a Milestone: $100,000

      by

      The price of a single Bitcoin rose to six figures for the first time, an extraordinary level for a 16-year-old cryptocurrency once dismissed as a sideshow.In May 2010, Laszlo Hanyecz, an early cryptocurrency enthusiast, used Bitcoin to buy two pizzas from Papa John’s. He spent 10,000 Bitcoins, or roughly $40 at the time, in one of the first purchases ever made with the digital currency.It has turned out to be the most expensive dinner in history.On Wednesday, the price of a single Bitcoin rose to more than $100,000, a remarkable milestone for an experimental financial asset that had once been mocked as a sideshow and a fad. The total cost of those pizzas today: $1 billion.Bitcoin now stands as arguably the most successful investment product of the last 20 years. The value of all the coins in circulation is $2 trillion, more than the combined worth of Mastercard, Walmart and JPMorgan Chase. The motley assortment of hackers and political radicals who embraced Bitcoin when it was created by an anonymous coder in 2008 have become millionaires many times over. And the invention has spawned an entire industry anchored by publicly traded companies like Coinbase, a cryptocurrency exchange, and promoted by celebrities, athletes and Elon Musk.Even the president-elect says he is a believer. During the campaign, Donald J. Trump marketed himself as a Bitcoin enthusiast, vowing to create a federal stockpile that could push its price even higher.

      Note: As of 10 p.m. Eastern on Dec. 4Source: Investing.comBy The New York TimesBitcoin began as “essentially an experimental hobbyist project,” said Finn Brunton, the author of a 2019 book about the history of cryptocurrency. “To see where it is now is to see a really impressive feat.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 188 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Victims of Stanford Financial’s Fraud Scheme May Soon Be Paid. Some Already Sold Their Claim.

      by

      Not having much insight into what may happen next in the case of a fraud orchestrated by Robert Allen Stanford, many of the victims sold the rights to any future payout.It’s been 15 years since Thomas Swingle first learned that about $1 million of his family’s savings had gone up in smoke, after the financier Robert Allen Stanford was exposed for having sold billions in fraudulent certificates of deposit to investors around the world.The memory of those days is still painful.“It was literally a life-changing event,” Mr. Swingle, 72, said of the $7 billion scheme that unraveled in early 2009. “It is like someone hit you in the chest with a sledgehammer.”Now, victims of Mr. Stanford’s company, Stanford Financial, are on the verge of recouping some of their losses, but Mr. Swingle and his wife, Cindy Finch, have to contend with another decision they made: In 2021, they agreed to sell their claim to any future settlement to an investment fund for around $60,000.That means they won’t get a penny of the funds that are about to be disbursed. Instead, it’ll all go to the claim buyer.It’s a decision fraud victims have to agonize over in the wake of a big financial scam: Large investors offer them cash in exchange for the rights to any future payment. Many small investors who don’t have much insight into what might happen next may feel they don’t have a choice but to settle for a quick lump sum, rather than wait for a future payment that may never come.When Mr. Swingle and Ms. Finch sold their claim, he said, it appeared Stanford’s defrauded customers were unlikely to get anything back at all. Had the couple held on to the rights, they might be able to claim as much as $350,000.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Carl Icahn, Activist Investor, Faces Intense Scrutiny From Wall Street

      by

      The value of the 88-year-old activist investor’s stake in his own company has fallen by nearly $20 billion. Mr. Icahn said that he was “absolutely not selling.”Chief executives of public companies have long feared Carl C. Icahn. The 88-year-old investor made a name and billions for himself by questioning the decisions and strategies of corporate leaders and agitating for change at companies like Apple, RJR Nabisco and Netflix.But now Mr. Icahn is under intense scrutiny from Wall Street investors, who are rapidly selling his company’s stock. In the past year and a half, shares of Icahn Enterprises, his publicly traded investment company, have dropped more than 75 percent, losing nearly $20 billion of value. After dropping more than 30 percent since mid-August alone, it now trades at about $11 a share, its lowest level in more than two decades.Mr. Icahn owns roughly 86 percent of the shares, so he has personally lost billions of dollars, too.“There’s a confidence game and he’s lost the confidence of investors,” said Don Bilson, who focuses on activist investing as the head of event-driven research at Gordon Haskett Research Advisors.Some Wall Street investors are now worried that the stock’s continuing fall could threaten the health of the entire company and that it could be forced to sell companies it holds. Icahn Enterprises holds a mix of public stocks, real estate and other investments, according to interviews with Mr. Bilson and several other market watchers.Investors have been questioning whether Mr. Icahn himself has been selling his stock. He has taken out personal loans using his stock as collateral. Banks that offer these loans typically have strict requirements related to the value of a company. A sharp drop in a stock price could force a lender to sell shares.

      .dw-chart-subhed {
      line-height: 1;
      margin-bottom: 6px;
      font-family: nyt-franklin;
      color: #121212;
      font-size: 15px;
      font-weight: 700;
      }

      Icahn Enterprises share price
      Source: FactSetBy The New York TimesWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 163 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Why You Should Be Taking a Hard Look at Your Investments Right Now

      by

      After big gains in stocks and mediocre returns for bonds, investors are taking on undue risk if they don’t rebalance their holdings, our columnist says.All eyes were on the Federal Reserve this past week, or so several market analysts solemnly said. This was true even though the Fed essentially did nothing in its latest meeting but hold interest rates high to fight inflation, just as it has done for many months.To be fair, there was a little news: The Fed did appear to affirm the likelihood of rate cuts starting in September, and that’s important. But so are the big performance shifts in the market, away from highflying tech stocks like Nvidia and toward a broad range of less-heralded, smaller-company stocks. In fact, there’s a great deal to think about once you start focusing on the behavior of the markets and the health of the economy in an election year.But what is perhaps the most important issue for investors rarely gets attention.In a word, it is rebalancing.I’m not talking about a yoga pose, but rather about another discipline entirely: the need to periodically tweak your portfolio to make sure you’re maintaining an appropriate mix of stocks and bonds, also known as asset allocation. If you haven’t considered this for a while — and if nobody has been doing it for you — it’s important to pay attention now because without rebalancing, there’s a good chance you are taking on risks that you may not want to bear.The rise in the stock market over the last couple of years, and the mediocre performance of bonds, has twisted many investment plans and left portfolios seriously out of whack. I found, for example, that if you had 60 percent of your investments in a diversified U.S. stock index fund and 40 percent in a broad investment-grade bond fund five years ago, almost 75 percent of your investments would now be in stock. That could make you more vulnerable than you realize the next time the stock market has a big fall.Asset AllocationThe Securities and Exchange Commission defines asset allocation as “dividing an investment portfolio among different asset categories, such as stocks, bonds and cash.” It’s an important subject, but it’s not as straightforward as that description seems.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 75 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Supreme Court Rejects S.E.C.’s Administrative Tribunals

      by

      Such tribunals, common in executive agencies, hear enforcement actions without juries, a practice that challengers said violated the Constitution.The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected one of the primary ways the Securities and Exchange Commission enforces laws against securities fraud.The agency, like other regulators, brings some enforcement actions in internal tribunals rather than in federal courts. The S.E.C.’s practice, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for a six-justice majority in a decision divided along ideological lines, violated the right to a jury trial.“A defendant facing a fraud suit has the right to be tried by a jury of his peers before a neutral adjudicator,” the chief justice wrote.The case is one of several challenges this term to the power of administrative agencies, long a target of the conservative legal movement. The court last month rejected a challenge to the constitutionality of the way the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is funded. In January, it heard arguments in a pair of challenges to the Chevron doctrine, a foundational principle of administrative law that requires judicial deference to agencies’ reasonable interpretations of ambiguous statutes. (That case has not been decided.)A central question in the new case, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy, No. 22-859, was whether the administrative tribunals violate the right to a jury trial guaranteed by the Seventh Amendment in “suits at common law.”Lawyers for the agency said juries were not required in administrative proceedings because they were not private lawsuits but part of an effort to protect the rights of the public generally. They added that agency adjudications without juries are commonplace, with two dozen agencies having the authority to impose penalties in administrative proceedings.The case concerned George Jarkesy, a hedge fund manager accused of misleading investors. The S.E.C. brought a civil enforcement proceeding against him before an administrative law judge employed by the agency, who ruled against Mr. Jarkesy. After an internal appeal, the agency eventually ordered him and his company to pay a civil penalty of $300,000 and to disgorge $685,000 in what it said were illicit gains.Mr. Jarkesy appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans. A divided three-judge panel of that court ruled against the agency on three different grounds, all with the potential to disrupt enforcement of not only the securities laws but also many other kinds of regulations.In addition to saying that the tribunals ran afoul of the right to a jury trial, the appeals court ruled that the agency’s judges were excessively insulated from presidential oversight and that Congress could not allow the agency itself to decide where suits should be filed. More