As it currently stands, the "JOBS" bill now before the Senate would gut investor protection in the United States. The title of the bill is a complete misnomer -- anything that weakens investor protection makes it more risky to invest in companies and increases the cost of capital to honest entrepreneurs. (For more background on the bill and links, see this piece.)
Much of the 1930s-era Securities legislation, which served us well for more than 70 years, is about to be repealed in a moment of bipartisan madness.
Almost all attempts to amend the House version of this legislation -- and to make it more favorable to investors -- have now failed in the Senate, and the "cloture motion" received more than 60 votes (so the bill cannot be filibustered). But Senator Jack Reed (D., Rhode Island) is leading one last charge to make the Senate version more reasonable.
Here is the issue with H.R. 3606 (as the House version of the bill is known), from Senator Reed's website:
The SEC requires public companies to disclose meaningful financial information to the public. This provides a common pool of knowledge for all investors to judge for themselves whether to buy, sell, or hold a particular security. Only through the steady flow of timely, comprehensive, and accurate public information can people make sound investment decisions. The result of this information flow is a far more active, efficient, and transparent capital market that facilitates the capital formation so important to our nation's economy. H.R. 3606 would roll back key investor protections, denying the public critical information that is essential to make sound judgments and would ultimately not lead to the proposed goal of the bill: providing for access to capital, particularly for small emerging companies.
The "JOBS" bill would permit even very large companies to avoid all public disclosures.
Amazingly, it would also exempt these companies from having to comply with the federal regulation regarding mergers and acquisition. Private equity firms would even be able to manipulate the market while making a tender offer for shares -- the kind of behavior that has really been taboo (and illegal) since the 1930s.
Senator Reed has put forward an amendment, #1931, that will at least partially retain some of our existing investor protections and disclosure requirements.
Specifically, Senator Reed's amendment would close or limit a major loophole that will allow large companies to avoid registering with the SEC (and therefore escape much regulation). The Reed Amendment would clarify how to define "shareholders" for the purpose of determining if a business is so widely owned that it must register with the SEC. Under the Amendment, the count should be based on beneficial owners of the shares, i.e., real people. The goal is to prevent evasion of the SEC registration threshold through "nominal" owners holding the shares for large numbers of beneficial owners.
Big companies like H.R. 3606 - they will be regulated less and if the cost of capital rises for start-ups, that actually helps them. The Chamber of Commerce, the American Bankers' Association, and the Independent Community Bankers of America have all weighed in heavily against the Reed Amendment - the idea of escaping SEC scrutiny greatly appeals to them.
The Chamber of Commerce's letter against the Amendment to Senators closes with this statement - or you might call it a threat (bold and underlining in the original):
The Chamber strongly opposes this amendment and may consider including votes on, or in relation to, this amendment in our How They Voted scorecard.
Under Senate rules, the Reed Amendment would need just 51 votes today in order to pass. But against this kind of corporate firepower, does this entirely reasonable Amendment have any chance?
Simon Johnson is the co-author of White House Burning: The Founding Fathers, Our National Debt, and Why It Matters To You, available from April 3rd. This post is cross-posted from The Baseline Scenario.
Follow Simon Johnson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/baselinescene
Sadly, the differences between many Dems and the Repugs is ONLY a matter of degree.
Ordinary Americans.....including small potatoes investors and those with money in stocks due to retirement plans.....are getting the shaft.
We just do not have many politicians working for us.
BTW, who in Congress voted no on the JOBS bill??
The Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994 (IBBEA) swept away all state barriers to interstate banking. It allowed financial institutions to locate branches in other states and to purchase or merge with banks headquartered in other states.
The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA), also referred to as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, repealed part of Glass-Steagall, tearing down the walls between banking, insurance and investments. Companies could now merge, partner and operate freely within each other's industries. The act also made it possible for the financial industry to group mortgage and other portfolios, selling them as investments.
Institutions that don't want to follow Glass-Steagall should be barred from participating in the (FDIC) Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Let the investor and we the 99% er's decide then where we want to put our money. Simple solution. If BANKS TO BIG TO FAIL want to make risky investments let them with their money and it won't hurt the 99%er's!
Read more: The History of Bank Deregulation | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/about_5413083_history-bank-deregulation.html#ixzz1ptXXNSSp
And with all the deregulation, the stock market is probably no better than a Ponzi scheme.
Too bad too many ordinary Americans are forced to mess with the stock market (pension plans, 401K's, etc.).
The vultures pluck the eyeballs out of the suckers' faces time and again.......
Many boomers will work until they drop.....and so will those workers who come after them........
Likewise, the emission of my automobile are trivial compared to the great ocean of fresh air that surrounds us. Yet, in aggregate, many thousands of those tailpipes create (among other things) unhealthful smog. Thus septic tanks meeting certain minimal specifications and anti-pollution devices (such as catalytic converters) are required by law.
I have been harmed financially by risks taken by others, although not as badly as many. I know of at least one family who lost their home, not because they foolishly took out a “liar loan” (which banks eagerly provided) but because of a lost job and bad timing. The collapse of the economy (over and above a normal business cycle) was engineered elsewhere.
We agree to regulate speeds in school zones. Considering that the love of money is said to be “the root of all evil” (which makes sense if by “love” you mean concern for nothing else) why would we not regulate financial practices that have done obvious harm? Perhaps those who resist judicious regulation do not have the public’s best interests at heart.
Selling private property goods one person to another has the same legality and the same chances for fraud. But you know to buy things on sites like Ebay with seller checking versus on a shady street corner from some guy in a trench coat saying "Pssst, hey buddy, wanna buy some stock?" Fraud can be fixed by the market, technology, and people's good senses with their money. Clean investment venues will quickly spring up - onerous laws are not needed and will just prevent those badly investments like they do now. Don't count on banks or the VCs and angels following the latest sexy theme to come to the small business financial rescue. They aren't now, only public crowdsourcing will fund that small local startup.
You're suggesting that there will be websites where information is shared? But from where does the information come from? That would require a company insider to provide the information. Those same insiders (at least the higher up executives) are likely subject to agreements regarding nondisclosure.
I'm also pretty sure that our number 1 economy has had sufficient growth and hasn't stiffled investment by requiring full disclosure.
As for our number 1 economy being so great to startups - checkout any of the $500K plus projects that were raised on Kickstarter. Go ahead, I'll wait. And then ask yourself, would any VC, angel, or bank have given these people anywhere near that kind of money on anything resembling reasonable terms? No.
are removed..there is that option. EG the battle of Anthem Tennessee.
The US in Afghanistan has all the above and more, they can't win nor did Russia. In fact it is a nation that has never been defeated.
All current politicians are voted out.
AND-
We all pay for campaigns equally.
ONLY THEN-
Will we all enjoy a fair society equally.
.