AMEX CEO Sodano's Dismissal Reversed

3 replies [Last post]
Anonymous's picture
Anonymous
Anonymous's picture
Anonymous

_popupControl();

Postscript:  As many of you have reminded me, the Sodano case is all too reminiscent of former President Clinton's comment (footnote 1,128 in the Starr Report):

It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement....Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true.

Incredible Hulk's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-03-24

rrbdlawyer wrote:

If Sodano were charged for industry misconduct in the capacity of a registered person, the issue of whether he was currently registered would have little relevancy (provided the charges were filed within two years of the termination of such registration). However, since Sodano was charged for industry misconduct in his role as a regulator, the law seemed to permit sanctions only upon a current regulator.

As my earlier blog disclosed, I found the dichotomy between Sodano's treatment and that of the average registered representative to be absurd and disheartening.

I am dumbfounded (not all that uncommon though) that a "regulator" would get a pass that the "regulated" would not. As Paul teaches in 1 Timothy 3, Overseers should be above reproach.

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous

_popupControl();
And, if you don't mind going a bit earlier in history, I would refer you to Plato/Socrates (apologies for using the more popular Latin version of this earlier Greek poser):
 
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
 
 

Please or Register to post comments.

Industry Newsletters
Investment Category Sponsor Links

 

Sponsored Introduction Continue on to (or wait seconds) ×