Tuesday, 21 June 2016

Conflicts of Interest and the Sham that is 'Compliance':

Conflicts of Interest and the Sham that is 'Compliance':

 The BC Securities Commission is described as a Corporation that is self funded and self regulated. The BC Securities Commission has stakeholders, some of these stakeholders are private corporations that are owned directly by the TMX Group Inc. The Five largest banks in Canada own a an average of over %25 of the TMX Group. How can banks and the stock market be allowed to own a stake in the regulators which regulate them?! This is a conflict of interest that is criminal. How can a Corporation act as a Regulator when the principle characteristics of each are fundamentally opposite?

  How can the Banks own a stake in the Regulators that are supposed to police them? This is a clear conflict of interest and no matter how the Securities 'experts' and lawyers attempt to spin the facts letting the banks own an interest in the Regulatory regime is akin to letting inmates design their own prisons. This is why we have so called financial planners who no longer have to sell products that are in the best interest of the client and they can do it with regulatory blessing. Its in the best interest of the banks who keep the market liquid with capital to ensure securities are sold regardless of their fit for the client, the bank takes a cut no matter what. The reason the Regulatory regime goes after small business and private capital is that these pools of capital threaten banks and the banking industry, compliance in their words is a 'cost' to be paid, not the operation of a corporation with integrity working in the interest of shareholders and ownership.
  If fair and unbiased regulation of the markets is continuously costing loss of revenue the 'Regulatory Corporation', the corporation is going to find new profit centres to ensure its survival just like any good CEO of a Corporation should. The problem, making a profit is not the purpose of a regulator! Ensuring the integrity of the Financial markets is the purpose of a Financial Regulator.
Many businesses pay the costs of 'compliance' such as those associated with preparing an Offering Memorandum and/or a Prospectus so that they can maintain 'compliance' while they raise capital.

  The problem is that their is very little accountability demanded from these businesses after they have paid the cost of 'compliance'. The current Regulatory regime has no real interest in where the money goes and whether a legit businesses is being run, it simply wants its fees for paperwork.
  Simply put we are being extorted on a national level by the big banks and financial regulators who attempt to use confusion, fear, and deception to hide what is truly happening.

  The trend in the financial world of late has been for Governments to let all sorts of Regulators police themselves in whats termed SRO's, self regulatory organizations. The problem is that no one is held accountable and conflicts of interest run deep as many of these organizations also happen to be self-funded. Our regulators run as businesses who in current form exist to keep themselves in business rather then do their job and regulate the markets. Until this changes we will continue to see fraudulent practices and deception as standard procedures on behalf of all of these regulatory regimes.

How can a self-funded regulatory agency act in a fair and unbiased manner when its very existence may depend its abilities to levy fines for regulatory 'infractions' that its tribunals find have been committed by the market participants it is mandated with regulating? What would the natural interests and tendencies of a self-funded and self-regulated organization be? If one thinks that the tendencies of such an organization would not be to constantly act in its self-interest to ensure its continuation one then surely in any other world but this crazy rock would be percieved as naive. If the governing bodies and individuals in charge can look us in the eye and tell us with a straight face that this will not present a conflict of interest and hinder the duties of a regulatory body tasked with ensuring the integrity of a Financial market then they are either bold-faced liars and thieves or complete morons.

  Either way they should no longer carry places of responsibility in Financial governance as they are unfit to carry out the duties required of office.
 The link provided here is regarding the proposed new CSRA which is planned to take over the roles of the BCSC and the OSC in the fall of this year. The problem is that it will simply be the same old charade, however this new monstrosity wants Criminal Enforcement powers so it may imprison people who do not pay the cost of 'Compliance' or refuse to toe the line. The entire regulatory regime in Canada is a sham and a charade and now these criminals want the power to silence those who tell the truth with imprisonment. This link should give some insight into the future that will be our regulatory regime if we do not act now to ensure change, the type of change that will eliminate or vastly reduce the conflict of interest that arises when Financial Securities Regulators become Corporations. 
 The following information was taken from the BC Securities Commission Service plan for 2017 and beyond, it outlines a few more details about the planned collapse of the BCSC and the new Canadian Securities Regulatory Authority (CSRA) or the CMRA as Brenda Leong refers to it. The colour of the lipstick don't matter, a pig is still a pig.
 See the exerts from the Service Plan with the final one containing details about the planned collapse of the BCSC in the fall of this year.
 Accountability statement regarding the Service Plan from BCSC CEO Brenda Leong,

   Supposedly the BCSC has ethics and integrity, here the Taxpayers Accountabilities Principles are referenced.

    See what the Taxpayers Accountability Principles have to say about ethics and accountability

 See what the former Head of the Criminal Enforcement Division Ms. Teresa Mitchell-Banks had to say about things like accountability and ethics when questioned why the BCSC withheld hearings transcripts from us in dealing with our case where all we ever did was tell the truth.

   Does that sound like accountability and integrity? Interestingly enough the former Crown star prosecutor in the trial of one of BC's most notorious gangsters, one of Bacon brothers was dismissed from the BC Securities Commission some time ago without the BCSC giving the public a reason as to why the number three in charge who is responsible for the Criminal Division would abruptly leave the BCSC.
 Insider sources confirmed our suspicions, she was fired for her criminal actions in more then one case. Will Ms. Brenda Leong take responsibility for the actions of her employees or will she simply try to hide behind a new regime? See from the horses mouth the plan to dismantle the BCSC this year. See the bottom under Financial Outlook..

As always more to come..

No comments:

Post a Comment