Applicant Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association ("SIFMA") challenges fees imposed by two national securities exchanges for market data, appealing from an administrative law judge's initial decision rejecting its challenges. We review SIFMA's claims under Section 19(f) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act"), which requires exchanges NYSE Arca, Inc. ("NYSE Arca"), and Nasdaq Stock Market LLC ("Nasdaq") to show that their fees are "consistent with the purposes of" that act. The Exchange Act requires that the fees be "fair and reasonable" and "not unreasonably discriminatory." The exchanges must show that the fees satisfy this standard by a preponderance of the evidence. We conclude that the exchanges failed to meet their burden with respect to the fees at issue and accordingly set aside those fees prospectively (i.e., as of the date of this order).
On October 16, 2018, the Commission issued its decision in Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (the "SIFMA Decision"). In that proceeding, the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association ("SIFMA") challenged under Section 19 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") certain fees imposed by two national securities exchanges, NYSE Arca, Inc. and Nasdaq Stock Market LLC, as improper limitations or prohibitions of access to services offered by the exchanges. Our decision held that the exchanges failed to meet their burden of establishing that the challenged fees were consistent with the purposes of the Exchange Act, and accordingly set them aside.While SIFMA's challenge to those fees was before us, SIFMA and Bloomberg L.P. filed an additional 61 applications for review that challenged over 400 rule changes filed by national securities exchanges and plan amendments filed by National Market System ("NMS") plan participants as improper limitations or prohibitions of access under Exchange Act Sections 11A and 19. These applications for review remained pending while we considered the SIFMA challenges that resulted in the SIFMA Decision.
It is hard to grow, prosper and innovate in a world where rule cops watch your every move. RIAs have lived through a golden era of infrequent and humane audits and the RIA business as a whole grew, prospered and innovated. Now there are signs that that could change out there in the ether of intellectual discussion. But here we see something scarier -- lawyers spending money to buy the services of more lawyers i.e. putting their money where their mouth is when it comes to a new era of RIA scrutiny. Yes, the story has a dissenting voice of somebody who is doubtful that such a big change is coming. Both sides are convincing.
In one of the schemes, Whittington posed as an attorney and falsely promised a victim that he could help the victim recover losses suffered after investing in two bogus companies. Whittington claimed he was able to seize assets from the two fraudulent companies, but the victim needed to provide money that would be used to "post bonds" that were required prior to seizing the assets. After Whittington falsely claimed that he had obtained a $4 million judgment, Whittington told the victim that representatives from the companies and other victims were very angry and that he should leave the country to avoid confrontations and harassment.As a result of this "reloading" scheme, the victim paid Whittington approximately $290,000 to recover the losses - but Whittington simply spent the money on personal expenses, which included making payments to other victims of his schemes.
[A]mericans are having to work past traditional retirement age.And t he number of bankruptcies for those over the age of 65 has increased dramatically. The size and speed of the tsunami is likely to increase as it gets closer and closer to us. Our population is aging and the cost of medical care-an important factor for retirees -- is increasing. We must address this problem before we are collectively underwater.The possible solutions to the retirement crisis are multi-faceted and involve many people and many government entities. My brief remarks this morning will not address the fundamental role of Social Security in the retirement paradigm or the difficulties many low-wage workers face in saving at all. As an SEC Commissioner, I'm here to talk about solutions specifically related to the third leg of the stool -- investments. Stashing away money in a savings account only gets retirees so far. To have a safe and secure retirement, Americans must invest their savings to allow them to grow. For example, someone who saves $17 a day starting at 21 will have put aside $273,000 by the time they are ready to retire at 65. However, if they invest that same amount with a return of 7%, they will have almost $1.8 million in their retirement account. Without investment, retirement may be a dream that never comes true. Given the importance of investment to Americans' ability to retire, what can the SEC do to help?