For what I consider to be an informed opinion on the matter, I'll cite the head of the 80's Savings and Loan scandal investigation and prosecutions. He was interviewed on public radio the other year.
This is someone with expert knowledge who has actually been through and on the inside of a similar, if smaller, situation.
He pointed out that, in that case, they pursued investigations and prosecutions and were able to win settlements and judgments in circa 1000 instances including criminal prosecutions.
As I recall, he described what has happened this time around and a real shortfall and travesty. One that was not necessary, had justice been more aggressively (or, at all) pursued.
I'm not an expert. But this guy, not just through credentials but also experience and demonstrated results, is. And that's what he had to say on the matter.
Sorry, but it's been long enough that I don't recall his name off the top of my head. If I have time, I'll look for it and perhaps for that interview, as well. Or maybe someone else has a name and/or reference handy.
That was probably William Black. His usual point is that the lack of prosecutions is a result of the investigatory system having being gutted. He says that in the S&L scandal, his agency made 10,000 criminal referrals to the DoJ, while in the recent (much larger) crisis they made 0.
According to Black, the common argument that nothing can be prosecuted because it was all (perhaps regrettably) legal is totally wrong; rather, standard investigative procedures were simply not applied because there weren't the investigators to do it, and what you don't investigate you don't find.
I recall also his describing how they would "work up the chain". Where they had evidence of culpability at a lower level, they would use it to apply pressure to "flip" such employees against their management.
I think the description you cite is well taken.
I know someone who is fairly senior in the SEC. They have more or less confirmed what I've also read. The SEC is supposed to be self-funding. The revenue they take in (fees, etc.) has been far in excess of their budget. Instead of staffing up (woefully needed; occasionally promised -- most recently a couple of years ago; never delivered), Congress -- who sets their budget after incorporating that revenue into the general budget -- has treated them as a cash cow.
People need to look beyond "regulation is good/bad" labels, to learn and understand what is actually going on -- the specific circumstances.
This is someone with expert knowledge who has actually been through and on the inside of a similar, if smaller, situation.
He pointed out that, in that case, they pursued investigations and prosecutions and were able to win settlements and judgments in circa 1000 instances including criminal prosecutions.
As I recall, he described what has happened this time around and a real shortfall and travesty. One that was not necessary, had justice been more aggressively (or, at all) pursued.
I'm not an expert. But this guy, not just through credentials but also experience and demonstrated results, is. And that's what he had to say on the matter.
Sorry, but it's been long enough that I don't recall his name off the top of my head. If I have time, I'll look for it and perhaps for that interview, as well. Or maybe someone else has a name and/or reference handy.