December 13, 2010
As an investor, Rule 193 proposed by the SEC, upsets me a great deal for enhanced disclosure with regard to these asset-backed securities should have been implemented upon their introduction to the marketplace years ago. These underlying asset-backed securities were a critical reason that many of our financial institutions were in dire need for government aid just several years ago. In addition, this latest recession, as well as lack of oversight with regard to these asset-backed securities, is a significant reason investor confidence has continued to wane. While corporations will suffer from this from a cost perspective, including those there were never parts of the plethora of problems facing our economy and nations housing market, it is necessary for the SEC to further regulate these asset-backed securities. Thus, for the most part, I would be in support of any further regulation and oversight from the SEC with regard to this asset class.
One suggestion I would advise is that the SEC limits the reviews to only independent third parties, rather than granting the issuer the option to carry out the reviews. This implementation of independent third parties will only strengthen transparency and investor confidence. Also, as an investor and a believer in Darwin, when will the SEC propose regulation with regard to the takeover of banks too big to fail? How many times are we going to allow these large financial institutions to make critical mistakes, only to put our entire financial world in troubled waters? Nevertheless, I feel Rule 193 moves us one step closer to greater transparency and confidence in the marketplace.