LyrArc Article Gist
Considering the fines and sanctions by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, during the time Mary Schapiro headed the organization from 2007 -2008, it did not take a serious watchdog role over the brokerage business that it was expected to supervise. NASD which she formerly headed, and FINRA, did several examinations of the brokerage business of Mr Madoff who ran a$50 billion Ponzi scheme, but failed to find anything wrong. Her agency in 2007 concluded that Madoff's firm had only violated some technical rules. Also fines and sanctions assessed by FINRA declined during the time she headed it. Fines levied by FINRA declined from $148 million in 2005, the year of her predecessor, to $40 million in 2008. Ms. Schapiro headed NASD regulatory arm in 1996, NASD itself in 2006, and FINRA after its creation in 2007. FINRA is a private agency set up by Wall Street to regulate itself. As the prevailing opinion at the time, with the SEC severely understaffed, was that Wall Street could regulate itself, agencies like FINRA had a bigger responsibility than was realized by Ms Schapiro and others. One securities lawyer who represented firms examined by FINRA, says FINRA should at least have asked more questions about the Madoff operation. In a November 2006 speech to the Securites Industry and Financial Markets Association, Mary Schapiro says, "we remain utterly committed to our regulatory mission but we should be also committed to doing no unnecessary harm or restriction to innovation in the industry and markets". Some of the stuff that went on in the name of innovation went against some basics and commonsense, and the failure to follow tested old good financial practices to separate sound innovation from unsound innovation, was a failure of that period. Schapiro's statement seemed to be a contradiction of a severe nature when examined closely, because how could she remain committed 100% to the regulatory mission if she made strong exceptions for innovations whose true logic and effectiveness only time could tell. The element of caution that should be a key part of the regulator's temperament and mental build was entirely missing. See the link to financial regulators in India, and of how this task was handled with that element of caution and skepticism of prevailing opinion. Other failure of FINRA is that it lagged behind state regulators in catching upto the mess resulting in afreeze up of auction rate securites markets. In June and July 2008, Massachusetts and New York securities regulators filed fraud charges against big firms in that matter. Another failure was the failure to look into the mortgage securites that were held in brokerage accounts and see that the valuations of these securites are sound. Finra only filed small cases against Lehman Brothers, with a fine of only $125,000 for failing to keep accurate books and records. As late as May 7, 2008 in speaking at the Financial Services Institute meeting, Schapiro was asked about what FINRA was doing to regulate complex packaged products like mortgage securites. And even though credit rating agencies had by this time been exposed as having failed, Ms Schapiro would only say, according to a financial advisor who asked the question, that "we have credit rating agencies that rate them." A pretty hands off view for a regulator when the cracks in the system were already exposed in mid 2008. Another facet of this is the high levels of compensation especially for a regulator. For her job at FINRA she received pay of $3.1 million a year including $2.5 million in compensation and $615,000 in benefits and deferred pay. In 2007 she also earned $449,000 in cash and stock grants as director of Duke Energy and Kraft Foods. All of which means that it is straining credulity for Obama to suggest that Mary Schapiro is the best person the Democrats could find for this critical job, in which the record has been severely impaired.