Bush's SEC betrays investors again, settles with Putnam.

[SuperTool]

http://www.msnbc.com/news/993249.asp?0sl=-20&cp1=1
I guess we can thank God for Spitzer, because the SEC is not doing its job.

 

[rjain]

Would you rather that millions of Americans got their retirement savings plans wiped away?

 

[SuperTool]

No, but SEC would. They just slapped on the wrist Putnam, which was stealing from mutual funds investors.
In positive news, I dumped all my Putnam mutual funds in my 401K and IRA. Those cheaters won't get a penny from me.

 

[rjain]

Erm, if Putnam went out of business, how would you get your investments back? What would those people with only Putnam funds do with their retirement money that they managed to salvage? Of course, the administrators of those plans should be beaten with a pointy stick for even thinking that underperforming the indices is a good feature of a fund, but that's besides the point.

 

[UltraQuiet]

It is a very tricky thing when you start going after companies like this. The people who were responsible should certainly be prosecuted, the company should pay restitution at a minimum but when you go after the company you run the risk of punishing people ( by them losing their jobs because of fines,lawsuits, etc that are filed against the company) who had absolutely nothing to do with the crime that was committed.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: rjain
Erm, if Putnam went out of business, how would you get your investments back? What would those people with only Putnam funds do with their retirement money that they managed to salvage? Of course, the administrators of those plans should be beaten with a pointy stick for even thinking that underperforming the indices is a good feature of a fund, but that's besides the point.

You should learn how mutual funds work. They own assets (stocks, bonds, etc) on behalf of investors. Investors can withdraw their money. It's not like the assets will disappear. This is not Putnam stock we are talking about. Putnam investors can withdraw their money and move it to other funds, which is what I have done.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
It is a very tricky thing when you start going after companies like this. The people who were responsible should certainly be prosecuted, the company should pay restitution at a minimum but when you go after the company you run the risk of punishing people ( by them losing their jobs because of fines,lawsuits, etc that are filed against the company) who had absolutely nothing to do with the crime that was committed.

This is America. Welcome.
When your company screws up, you suffer. It's the government's job to protect the consumer and investor, not employees of corrupt companies. The employees can blame the management and the "bad apples" for their troubles.

 

[rjain]

If Putnam is forced to close shop, how will you redeem your fund shares?

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: rjain
If Putnam is forced to close shop, how will you redeem your fund shares?

Putnam owns real assets on behalf of the investors. Those assets' value has nothing to do with Putnam. Do you think if Putnam is closed down, they can just keep those assets for themselves? If Putnam is closed down, those assets will be sold and proceeds distributed back to the investors.

 

[rjain]

And the fact that they're selling them will cause the assets to become worth far less than they are now.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
It is a very tricky thing when you start going after companies like this. The people who were responsible should certainly be prosecuted, the company should pay restitution at a minimum but when you go after the company you run the risk of punishing people ( by them losing their jobs because of fines,lawsuits, etc that are filed against the company) who had absolutely nothing to do with the crime that was committed.

This is America. Welcome.
When your company screws up, you suffer. It's the government's job to protect the consumer and investor, not employees of corrupt companies. The employees can blame the management and the "bad apples" for their troubles.

So the guy sweeping the floor, secretaries, middle managers, etc should just have to eat it because few POS high up in the company do something illegal and the SEC fines and lawsuits them out of existence? That makes a lot of sense. As far as it not being the goverments job to protect employees, I'll notify the Dept of Labor, NLRB, etc.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
It is a very tricky thing when you start going after companies like this. The people who were responsible should certainly be prosecuted, the company should pay restitution at a minimum but when you go after the company you run the risk of punishing people ( by them losing their jobs because of fines,lawsuits, etc that are filed against the company) who had absolutely nothing to do with the crime that was committed.

This is America. Welcome.
When your company screws up, you suffer. It's the government's job to protect the consumer and investor, not employees of corrupt companies. The employees can blame the management and the "bad apples" for their troubles.

So the guy sweeping the floor, secretaries, middle managers, etc should just have to eat it because few POS high up in the company do something illegal and the SEC fines and lawsuits them out of existence? That makes a lot of sense. As far as it not being the goverments job to protect employees, I'll notify the Dept of Labor, NLRB, etc.

Perhaps this would satisfy ST's wish to hold those responsible accountable while protecting those who UQ fears might be harmed-
In these situations where top management did (or should have, but choose not to) know of abuses, or in fact were guilty of wrongdoing themselves, ban them from working in positions of authority and any compensation, direct or indirect from such businesses. Take their golden parachutes, forfeit disbursement of retirement, or take that money and apply it to the accounts of those wronged.

Want to hurt a greedy person badly? Take their money, and their means of making more, at least in the amount they crave. I believe that would also be an effective way to discourage others from doing the same.

A few other things need to be accomplished. Fully fund the SEC. I am sure I will be corrected if wrong, but the last several years were lean as far they getting the money needed to perform properly. If you overload an agency, you guarantee that it cannot do it's job properly. If this was intentional or coincidental, I will let others decide.

There needs to be ongoing review of business practices and ethics, and regulations and penalties updated and modified. If a creative form of theft comes into practice, it needs to be stopped before more Enron type situations develop.

 

[rjain]

Look at what happens to former SEC high-level regulators. They go and work for the finance industry. Overlook a violation here or there and look, you get a job with the people you let slide. Interesting situation, isn't it?

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
It is a very tricky thing when you start going after companies like this. The people who were responsible should certainly be prosecuted, the company should pay restitution at a minimum but when you go after the company you run the risk of punishing people ( by them losing their jobs because of fines,lawsuits, etc that are filed against the company) who had absolutely nothing to do with the crime that was committed.

This is America. Welcome.
When your company screws up, you suffer. It's the government's job to protect the consumer and investor, not employees of corrupt companies. The employees can blame the management and the "bad apples" for their troubles.

So the guy sweeping the floor, secretaries, middle managers, etc should just have to eat it because few POS high up in the company do something illegal and the SEC fines and lawsuits them out of existence? That makes a lot of sense. As far as it not being the goverments job to protect employees, I'll notify the Dept of Labor, NLRB, etc.

Companies that break the law, cheat their customers, or even make business mistakes, go out of business, taking the jobs with them. That is something these cheaters and executives need to think about, not regulators. SEC's job is to protect investors, not financial sector employees. Consumers who drop Putnam will look somewhere else to put their money, and other hopefully honest companies will step in to provide that service, providing employment to honest Putnam employees. If SEC does not shut down Putnam, it'll hurt the whole mutual fund sector, because if SEC is lax, investors won't trust the system. So people in honest companies will be hurt, instead of flushing out the cheaters.

 

[zephyrprime]

You have to procescute these guys or otherwise companies like this will make a conscious decision that it is cost effective to break the law. Yes, that's right. A company accountant will actually be given the job to figure out how best to break the law so that after some fines and laywer fees, the company will still have made more money breaking the law that adhering to it. You have to make it so that crime, literally, does not pay. Right now, the SEC is making it so that crime provides a pretty good rate of return for guys at putnam.

And as far as considerations for hurting the little guy if someone like putnam were to shut down? Well guess what. Crime always hurts the little guy! If a criminal is sent to jail, that hurts his family right? If he's not sent to jail, he'll hurt/rob some stranger. So either way, there's unpleasant consequences. Dealing with situations like this is always about the lesser to 2 evils.

It seems like the only justice that will be meeted with this mutual fund scandal is by the market; by people withdrawing from the suspect fund companies.

 

[SuperTool]

Cheaters need to be shut down, making room for honest companies.
I have sold all putnam mutual funds, and have written my 401k administrator asking to replace Putnam mutual funds with another fund in the 401k selection. I suggest all investors do the same, because the SEC is not going to do it's job, so it's up to investors to drive Putnam out of business.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
It is a very tricky thing when you start going after companies like this. The people who were responsible should certainly be prosecuted, the company should pay restitution at a minimum but when you go after the company you run the risk of punishing people ( by them losing their jobs because of fines,lawsuits, etc that are filed against the company) who had absolutely nothing to do with the crime that was committed.

This is America. Welcome.
When your company screws up, you suffer. It's the government's job to protect the consumer and investor, not employees of corrupt companies. The employees can blame the management and the "bad apples" for their troubles.

So the guy sweeping the floor, secretaries, middle managers, etc should just have to eat it because few POS high up in the company do something illegal and the SEC fines and lawsuits them out of existence? That makes a lot of sense. As far as it not being the goverments job to protect employees, I'll notify the Dept of Labor, NLRB, etc.

Companies that break the law, cheat their customers, or even make business mistakes, go out of business, taking the jobs with them. That is something these cheaters and executives need to think about, not regulators. SEC's job is to protect investors, not financial sector employees. Consumers who drop Putnam will look somewhere else to put their money, and other hopefully honest companies will step in to provide that service, providing employment to honest Putnam employees. If SEC does not shut down Putnam, it'll hurt the whole mutual fund sector, because if SEC is lax, investors won't trust the system. So people in honest companies will be hurt, instead of flushing out the cheaters.

I think you ought to distinguish between the "company" and management.
Do you think the execs really care what happens to their employees? They care about power and money. If you close Putnam, guess what? Some other company will quietly hire their management. So the bad guys keep raking in bucks, and the little guys get shafted, and the public is no better off for it, still having funds managed by these types.

Take their money, and keep them out of the business.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
It is a very tricky thing when you start going after companies like this. The people who were responsible should certainly be prosecuted, the company should pay restitution at a minimum but when you go after the company you run the risk of punishing people ( by them losing their jobs because of fines,lawsuits, etc that are filed against the company) who had absolutely nothing to do with the crime that was committed.

This is America. Welcome.
When your company screws up, you suffer. It's the government's job to protect the consumer and investor, not employees of corrupt companies. The employees can blame the management and the "bad apples" for their troubles.

So the guy sweeping the floor, secretaries, middle managers, etc should just have to eat it because few POS high up in the company do something illegal and the SEC fines and lawsuits them out of existence? That makes a lot of sense. As far as it not being the goverments job to protect employees, I'll notify the Dept of Labor, NLRB, etc.

Companies that break the law, cheat their customers, or even make business mistakes, go out of business, taking the jobs with them. That is something these cheaters and executives need to think about, not regulators. SEC's job is to protect investors, not financial sector employees. Consumers who drop Putnam will look somewhere else to put their money, and other hopefully honest companies will step in to provide that service, providing employment to honest Putnam employees. If SEC does not shut down Putnam, it'll hurt the whole mutual fund sector, because if SEC is lax, investors won't trust the system. So people in honest companies will be hurt, instead of flushing out the cheaters.

I think you ought to distinguish between the "company" and management.
Do you think the execs really care what happens to their employees? They care about power and money. If you close Putnam, guess what? Some other company will quietly hire their management. So the bad guys keep raking in bucks, and the little guys get shafted, and the public is no better off for it, still having funds managed by these types.

Take their money, and keep them out of the business.

Again, this is America. This is what happens. And no, management and company should not be distinguished. Management makes decisions for the company.
I frankly don't care who is sweeping floors or cleaning toilets at Putnam. I care who is managing investor funds.

 

[Witling]

On a more nuetral note, PBS (11/14/03) reports that $14 billion has been taken out of Putnam in the last two weeks. Much of this seems to be from pension plan managers who are a little miffed at Putnam.

Oh yes, I forgot why I originally wanted to participate in this. This is not a Bush issue. True, he's the president when Putnam got caught holding the bag, but it could just as easily been a different administration.