SEC
Posted: Sat Oct 23, 2010 10:54 pm
have any 2Ls heard from the SEC?
Law School Discussion Forums
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=134079
The problem with the SEC is that it is filled with bumbling idiots who don't know anything about finance. And that includes the Enforcement Division. If you want to join the SEC and become part of the problem, be my guest.Anonymous User wrote:Even for the Enforcement division? I don't think so. I met someone last week who had been litigating for the SEC for 7+ years, and he didn't mention that a CFA certification was beneficial to be in the Enforcement division...
Hmmm. You know looking back at what I learned about the SEC in regards to the Great Depression etc. you've really hit on something here. If you really think about it, to be able to fulfill the purpose of the SEC, you'd have to have a very good understanding of corporate finance, securities, the capital markets etc.Danteshek wrote:The problem with the SEC is that it is filled with bumbling idiots who don't know anything about finance. And that includes the Enforcement Division. If you want to join the SEC and become part of the problem, be my guest.Anonymous User wrote:Even for the Enforcement division? I don't think so. I met someone last week who had been litigating for the SEC for 7+ years, and he didn't mention that a CFA certification was beneficial to be in the Enforcement division...
No shit.BruceWayne wrote:Hmmm. You know looking back at what I learned about the SEC in regards to the Great Depression etc. you've really hit on something here. If you really think about it, to be able to fulfill the purpose of the SEC, you'd have to have a very good understanding of corporate finance, securities, the capital markets etc.Danteshek wrote:The problem with the SEC is that it is filled with bumbling idiots who don't know anything about finance. And that includes the Enforcement Division. If you want to join the SEC and become part of the problem, be my guest.Anonymous User wrote:Even for the Enforcement division? I don't think so. I met someone last week who had been litigating for the SEC for 7+ years, and he didn't mention that a CFA certification was beneficial to be in the Enforcement division...
The problem with the SEC is that it is filled with bumbling idiots who don't know anything about finance. And that includes the Enforcement Division. If you want to join the SEC and become part of the problem, be my guest.
No. The only way you can learn about the financial services industry is to work within it. And without that knowledge you cannot regulate effectively. Fortunately the SEC is beginning to recognize this fact. Approximately 90% of the 1L Summer Honors Interns last summer had significant industry experience. Your attitude is precisely what got the SEC in trouble in the first place. When the SEC investigated Madoff, not a single member of the examination team knew anything about derivatives. They did not understand that one could only realistically own $1 billion in OEX puts (out of $9 billion in the market) to protect his stocks in a split-strike conversion strategy. And his portfolio demanded that he have between $3 billion to $65 billion. Smart people from good schools who have no industry experience are not capable of spotting this kind of thing.Anonymous User wrote:The problem with the SEC is that it is filled with bumbling idiots who don't know anything about finance. And that includes the Enforcement Division. If you want to join the SEC and become part of the problem, be my guest.
I personally think that the SEC needs to be filled with intelligent (top schools, top grades) individuals who are dedicated to public service and regulating the financial markets in particular. Most of the recent problems have involved individuals who are not dedicated to the Commission, and who have been too understanding and willing to give breaks to their friends, people who they trust too much, on the outside. Most of those people have the requisite experience that you think is necessary to work for the commission. On the other hand, I think that people who are smart and driven can easily learn during law school and within the Commission what it takes to protect investors and the markets.
It must be nice to have 20/20 hindsight. Good luck discovering the next scam with what you learned in "Securities Regulation". What makes you dangerous is that you do not realize how ignorant you are.Anonymous User wrote:Wait, we just learned that in my Securities Regulation class. In fact, we spent two classes talking about the Maddoff problem. Did they not cover that at Loyola? Strange.
Danteshek wrote:Must be nice to have 20/20 hindsight. What makes you dangerous is that you do not realize how ignorant you are.Anonymous User wrote:Wait, we just learned that in my Securities Regulation class. In fact, we spent two classes talking about the Maddoff problem. Did they not cover that at Loyola? Strange.
No thanks. One summer at SEC was more than enough. I'm either going to DOJ Tax Division or working for a Federal District Judge.Anonymous User wrote:Whoa, thanks for your credentials. I'm sure that you will land a 2L internship. There are 150 of them. If you can't get a paid one, you will probably get an unpaid one. You can also try for the volunteer program. Anyways, good luck, and I look forward to possibly working with you.
Danteshek wrote:I'm very pleased with my brief. I'm pretty sure I'll get an A like last semester. First round of arguments was this morning.
Ahahahahahahahah!Danteshek wrote:http://www.docstoc.com/docs/29386602/Ou ... nt-Conduct
This is the email I sent to about 80 friends and family
Attached is my appellate brief for this semester. The topic is very interesting - the outrageous government conduct defense (technically it's not a defense, rather it's a claim to dismiss an indictment). This doctrine, unlike entrapment, is available to defendants who are predisposed to commit the crime. Unfortunately, the doctrine is basically dead - it hasn't been successfully invoked in the 9th Circuit since United States v. Green in 1971. However, it remains available to the federal courts just in case the government behaves especially badly. I argue that in this case, the government indeed has crossed the threshold into truly outrageous conduct.
My first round of oral argument was this Saturday. If I successfully navigate the next few rounds, I may have the chance to argue at the 9th Circuit, in front of the same judges who decided the cases I refer to in my brief.
with all due respect, i dont really see what having CFA level 1 will do to really help you with work at the SEC. i see later in the thread you listed your credentials, but as someone with 6+yrs of experience at a hedge fund, i think you'd pick up a lot more from some other base of knowledge. CFA 1 (and the certification in general) is heavily accounting focused (despite obviously testing sections on basic knowledge of derivatives, etc), and not 100% sure how this relates directly to enforcement. Generally I think a broad base of knowledge about how markets function, how business actually is executed (broker/client relationships, etc), etc. would be much more valuable than knowledge of p/e ratios, etc.Danteshek wrote:2L hiring process is not like 1L process. It is entirely decentralized, with each division/office making the decisions rather than a single hiring committee. If you are thinking about working at the SEC, you should read Harry Markopolos' book. And if you get an offer, you should honestly assess your credentials (industry experience, knowledge of finance) to determine you should be at the SEC in the first place. At the very least, you should be able to pass the CFA Level I exam before you get hired.
1Levening2013 wrote:with all due respect, i dont really see what having CFA level 1 will do to really help you with work at the SEC. i see later in the thread you listed your credentials, but as someone with 6+yrs of experience at a hedge fund, i think you'd pick up a lot more from some other base of knowledge. CFA 1 (and the certification in general) is heavily accounting focused (despite obviously testing sections on basic knowledge of derivatives, etc), and not 100% sure how this relates directly to enforcement. Generally I think a broad base of knowledge about how markets function, how business actually is executed (broker/client relationships, etc), etc. would be much more valuable than knowledge of p/e ratios, etc.Danteshek wrote:2L hiring process is not like 1L process. It is entirely decentralized, with each division/office making the decisions rather than a single hiring committee. If you are thinking about working at the SEC, you should read Harry Markopolos' book. And if you get an offer, you should honestly assess your credentials (industry experience, knowledge of finance) to determine you should be at the SEC in the first place. At the very least, you should be able to pass the CFA Level I exam before you get hired.
i guess the point of this post is more so to express that idea that i think law students in general think that working in coporate/securities/m&A law will require them to be able produce complex financial models. in reality, that's the job of the analysts at banks, hedge funds, PE firms--obviously the knowledge won't hurt you, but i am getting the sense that a lot of these people would rather be on the capital markets side of a deal rather than the legal side