The SEC is really just a tool for big banks and credit card companies to destroy competition. Their sole purpose and goal is to ignore real financial crimes by big players. Instead, they come up with ridiculous lawsuits against random individuals/ companies or perceived threats to the banking and credit monopolies.
Reasons for Theory:
- Soft Corruption: Employees at any level at the SEC are not barred from working in the finance industry after employment within the SEC. There are also no rules against SEC employees seeking jobs within the finance industry WHILE working at the SEC. Here is where I will interject a little personal speculation. I don’t think the big banks reach out to SEC employees and say hey don’t investigate us and we’ll give you a cushy job. I think it’s more subtle than that. I think the employees at the SEC know this loophole and seek out jobs within big banks. And the big banks probably don’t directly say to ignore crimes, but there is an unspoken implication that investigating a bank that you want to work for is probably a bad idea. I’m fully willing to admit I could be wrong, but I think this is why we haven’t heard much about this. It also makes it much harder to prove. But think to yourself, is it really possible that the housing bubble (which was caused by a litany of financial crimes) was perpetuated by almost all big banks. And they got away with it for over 15 years and the SEC never noticed. Until it all came crashing down.
- Lack of Guidelines: There are NO rules against inside trading. Wait wait wait, let me explain. Yes insider trading is illegal. However, there is no formal definition of insider trading. It is the SEC’s job to create this definition. They refuse to do so. Instead, they judge each case of insider trading and arbitrarily decide if it was insider trading. Their defense of this is that if they release a formal definition of insider trading then it’d be easier to find ways around this. But I would counter, couldn’t they at least come up with a definition of insider trading but also leave a caveat in the definition that insider trading can go beyond this definition? Or if the SEC was actually competent they could constantly update their definition of insider trading to match changing tactics. I really believe this is so that when small players do insider trading (individuals or startups), they can easily go after them. Or even go after them when insider trading didn’t actually occur. But when the big banks and hedge funds do it, they can look the other way without drawing criticism. After all some of the largest cases of insider trading having actually been pursued by state attorneys and the FBI. Even though it is the SEC’s job to do this.
- Crypto: They refuse to release regulations for crypto currencies. Instead they go after whichever cryptos they want. This should be an obvious one. Crypto is a huge threat to the banking and credit industry. This whole crypto mania caught the banks off guard and so the SEC is stepping to halt progress while the big banks and credit industry can create their own cryptos to replace Bitcoin, Ether, etc. This is resulting in most new coins to stop doing business in the US, which is exactly what the SEC wants. Help the banks create a monopoly on crypto. After all for months Jamie Dimon (CEO of JPMorgan Chase) bashed crypto relentlessly. Even going so far to say that any employee that he caught trading cryptos would be fired. Then out of nowhere, two months ago he announces that they are testing their own coin called JPM Coin.
- Ridiculous Lawsuits: The last point to tie this all together is that they make very ridiculous cases against either minor crimes or companies/individuals that had never done any wrongdoing in the first place. I believe it serves two purposes. As mentioned before, it stifles competition. But it also makes the SEC seem more legitimate. The idea behind these cases is they don’t even care if they win or lose. The whole purpose to try and bleed the companies. No one would support the SEC if they purposely ignored crimes. So they make up ridiculous lawsuits to give the appearance that they are “protecting” main street investors. Here are some examples of these and how I think they tie to corporate interests:
- A crypto called Kin had a recent lawsuit filed against by the SEC for selling an “unregistered security” . Many people have mixed opinions on Kin but love them or hate this is what happened. Kin conducted an ICO well before any rules or guidelines had been released. They were very careful to vet everyone who bought, they also paid taxes on the sale. And they even banned the ICO in Canada (their home country) because Canada’s version of the SEC told them they would have to register as a security. Now would they really have sold in the US if their coin was a security? If you do your research on Kin, they were started by the messaging app Kik. And the whole goal is to use Kin to help unite indie apps against Facebook. This leads me to believe that Facebook has a hand in the SEC. Especially since the lawsuit was declared last week and Facebook is supposed to announce their own coin this month.
- Elon Musk tweets. Literally just an opportunity to go after Elon after he had drawn a lot of harsh criticism over his tweets. Just an easy way for them to get free publicity.
- Mark Cuban: Went after Mark Cuban for years over insider trading. Went to court, he was proven innocent. Probably just another publicity stunt.
- Gary Griffiths and Cliff Steffes. Two railroad yard employees who literally just noticed one day that limos coming to their workplace and parking and an unusual amount of men in suits being given tours of the site. They speculated the company would be bought out and invested a lot in the company. Sure enough, the company was bought out, and the SEC sued them. Keep in mind this was in 2010. When the SEC was under a lot of scrutiny for not going after the big banks after the financial crash.
Please let me know of what you guys think of this theory in the comments below and if I should add anything to it. Thanks!
Disclaimers First off, I am not a financial expert. My entire theory above is based solely on my personal experience in the markets and speculation. Second, I attempted to look to see if someone had already posted this theory here. I could not find anything, which is interesting because I’ve heard this theory very often from many people. Anyways, if this theory already exists here, I apologize for reiterating it. Third, I am very new to the r/conspiracy Reddit. I am not that into conspiracies, I mostly just find them entertaining or interesting thought experiments. That being said I do believe a select few and that includes this one.