Business will never embrace regulation. The market yearns to be free and regulation, most of the time, places restrictions on unbridled capitalism. Some rules improve the competitive landscape for nearly all stakeholders, but that is the rare case.

One constant problem regarding regulation is the question of who does the regulating.

In order to provide proper oversight of something, you naturally must know a good deal about it. For example, if you have never traded securities on Wall Street, it is very difficult to have enough knowledge of all the nuanced realities that take place in that arena. This is just common sense. You can study, research and inquire as much as you want, but there will always be something lacking in your understanding if you have no first-hand experience.

Generally, the ideal person to oversee something, particularly when it is a complex, specialized marketplace, is a person from that marketplace.

Of course, the rub is that anyone who has existed within that marketplace long enough to learn all these complexities will also have developed relationships and biases. If Steve the securities trader worked in a trading room for 20 years, he likely was passed over for jobs by some companies and had a bi-weekly steak dinner with peers from various firms. He developed affinity for some companies and colleagues while developing resentment for other industry players and practices. So if he is to later become a watchdog of those people, it is hard to believe he will not bring those biases with him — intentionally or not — in his rule enforcement.

The SEC and Treasury departments have long been criticized for this.

The offshore drilling regulation world is similar. And a new report by AP shows just how pervasive the concern is among industry players and regulators with interests in the Gulf of Mexico.

Documents obtained by The Associated Press show that about 1 of every 5 employees of 109 involved in inspections in the Gulf has been recused from some duties because of the risk of coming into contact with a family member or friend working for a company the inspector regulates. Ten people hired since mid-August 2008 were barred for two years from performing work where they could be in a position of policing their previous employer—a company or contractor operating offshore.

In the Lafayette, La., office of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Enforcement and Regulation nearly 35 percent of inspectors have been disqualified because a friend or relative works for a company they could interact with on the job. In Lake Charles, La., nearly 30 percent of inspectors held their last job with an oil and gas company, meaning they can’t perform any duties involving their former employer for two years.

The numbers come from recusal forms under a new ethics policy instituted last year by the Obama administration to identify and prevent possible conflicts of interest before they arise.

Offshore drilling regulation does not have the resources or manpower of the SEC. So it is important that the smaller number of people regulating this segment of the energy sector do so well. And who else but industry vets could know all the ins and outs surrounding practices like ensuring proper anchoring standards for various types of oil rigs, installing blowout preventers and determining safe levels for gas releases?

Then again, if so many of the public servants (at least in name) transitioning from industry to the regulation side of things, how can you trust them to leave their biases at the door? (Especially when there is, like Wall Street, a revolving door practice of people who go from industry to regulation and then back to industry?)

In an ideal world, you would hope that a person who becomes a regulator could take that responsibility seriously enough that their conflicts of interest, while real, do not impede them from creating and enforcing good rules to govern the industry.

And I’m sure that in many instances, that would be the case. But these recusal policies are understandably necessary. And the degree to which they are being issued perhaps highlights a larger question.

How can a regulatory body properly operate when up to 35% of its inspectors are deemed to have conflicts of interest?

Regulators, particularly those within the SEC, took a lot of criticism for their inability to prevent the financial crisis in 2008. And rightly so. The complex CDOs and credit default swaps were all poorly regulated and this whole cottage industry that arose to, in essence, gamble on the real estate industry brought the global economy to the brink.

So feel free to continue piling on the regulators. I’m sure I will.

But sometimes you see something that adds a little more perspective. And today that comes from Forbes, which published the well-titled piece “10 Wall Street Expenses That Make The SEC’s Budget Look Pathetic” in response to the ongoing Washington debate over the size of SEC’s budget. (President Obama wants to raise it from the current $1.1 billion to $1.4 billion while House Republicans want to chop $25 million off the current total, according to Forbes.)

It isn’t apples-to-apples, but their list makes you wonder how always-behind-the-times-anyway bureaucrats could ever hope to compete with the savvy titans of the Street. The most glaring comes in looking at the $4 billion JPMorgan maintains for its litigation reserves alone. As Forbes writer Halah Touryalai puts it, “Yes — that means the money JPM is saving so it can fight or settle lawsuits is 4x the size of what the SEC has to regulate the entire securities industry.”

Kind of like taking a spork to a gun fight.

The most immediate effect will be the creation of new regulatory groups.

The National Law Review published a great breakdown. Here are the four more interesting additions.

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Will write consumer protection rules for banks and nonbank financial firms offering consumers financial services or products and ensure that consumers are protected from “unfair, deceptive, or abusive” acts or practices.

Federal Insurance Office
Will monitor all aspects of the insurance agency and identify issues or gaps in regulation that could lead to systemic risk.  Based upon its findings, the FIO will make recommendations to the FSOC regarding insurance institutions that pose a systemic risk and should be subject to greater regulatory oversight.

Financial Stability Oversight Council
Will identify risks and emerging threats to the financial stability of the United States arising from large bank holding companies and systemically important nonbank financial companies and respond with appropriate regulation to reduce the risk from their size and activities.

Office of Financial Research
Will have the power to subpoena financial information from institutions under the supervision of the Fed.  The OFR may require periodic and other reports from any nonbank financial company or bank holding companies.

The law also includes provisions surrounding “too big to fail,” the “Volker rule,” derivatives, hedge funds and “predatory” lending, but the regulatory changes are the most significant. And while it will be interesting to see how these new agencies take shape, the expanded mission of the SEC is the real story here.

I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that the SEC has been an abject failure since (at least) the turn of the millennium. I’m sure there was some good work done by the agency during this time, but if its core mission is to safeguard Americans from being duped by the unintelligible complexity masking the activity of Wall Street, the financial watchdog could not have performed more miserably. On its watch, complex, risk-laden transactions proliferated and — once the mirage of risk-free mortgage securities disappeared — ran the global economy head first into a brick wall. And this failure to check the financial institutions culpable was so great that, more than two years after Bear Stearns collapsed, nearly 10% of Americans still can’t find a job.

The Washington Post details the SEC’s expansion.

The SEC is required to issue 95 new regulations governing a wide swath of the financial sector, dozens more than the Federal Reserve, the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau or other federal agencies. The SEC is also slated to complete 17 one-time studies and five new ongoing reports, according to a tally by the law firm Davis Polk & Wardwell.

The SEC will serve on the new Financial Stability Oversight Council, a new interagency body meant to spot emerging risks to the overall financial system. It will have to write rules to supervise the multibillion-dollar market of derivatives linked to stocks and bonds. It will begin examining the activities of hedge funds and private equity firms and tighten oversight of credit-rating agencies. And it will do studies of short selling and whether brokerage and investment firms must meet higher standards.

Perhaps only the Office of Thrift Supervision can compete with the SEC in terms of the new law’s impact. But in contrast to the SEC, which is gaining so many new responsibilities, OTS, which regulated home lenders, is being abolished.

Indeed, the SEC is coming out of the financial regulatory overhaul far stronger than many observers of the agency might have anticipated.

While in some ways it seems counterintuitive to task what some have perceived to be a failed agency with greater authority, I suppose some body has to do it. And change — for the better — is theoretically what reform is all about.

So … Enter a new stage of regulation, as John Lester and John Bovenzi succinctly point out.

Enactment of Dodd-Frank … marks only a new stage of financial reform, as the debate shifts to the rulemaking efforts of federal agencies. The complexity of the law and the many decisions delegated to regulators makes it difficult to predict which of the law’s many provisions will come to be the most significant. Ultimately, it will be regulators who determine the true impact of the law.

And that’s what has so many people scared — including business leaders who think regulators will be too draconian and SEC critics who think regulators will be too inept.

Let’s take a look at the timeline of many of the events surrounding the AIG disaster (with help from ProPublica, the New York Fed and Bloomberg).

• August 5, 2007: During a conference call with investors, various high-ranking AIG officials stressed the near-absolute security of the credit-default swaps. “The risk actually undertaken is very modest and remote,” said AIG’s chief risk officer. Joseph Cassano, who oversaw the unit that dealt in the swaps, was even more emphatic: “It is hard for us with, and without being flippant, to even see a scenario within any kind of realm of reason that would see us losing $1 in any of those transactions…. We see no issues at all emerging. We see no dollar of loss associated with any of that business.” Martin Sullivan, AIG’s CEO, replied, “That’s why I am sleeping a little bit easier at night.”
  .
• October 1, 2007: Joseph St. Denis, the VP of Accounting Policy at AIG Financial Products, resigns after Cassano tells him, “I have deliberately excluded you from the valuation of the [credit-default swaps] because I was concerned that you would pollute the process.”
  .
• November 7, 2007: In an SEC filing, AIG reports $352 million  in unrealized losses from its credit-default swap portfolio, but says it’s “highly unlikely” AIG would really lose any money on the deals.
  .
• December 5, 2007: In an SEC filing, AIG discloses $1.05 billion to $1.15 billion in further unrealized losses to its swaps portfolio, a total of approximately $1.5 billion for 2007. During a conference call with investors, CEO Martin Sullivan explains that the probability that AIG’s credit-default swap portfolio will sustain an “economic loss” is “close to zero.” AIG’s risk-modeling system had proven “very reliable,” Sullivan said, and since the transactions were so “conservatively structured,” AIG had “a very high level of comfort” with its risk models.
  .
• February 28, 2008: In its year-end regulatory filing, AIG sets its 2007 total for unrealized losses at $11.5 billion. AIG also discloses that it had thus far posted $5.3 billion in collateral. It’s the first time the company has disclosed the amount of posted collateral. AIG puts the notional value of the entire swaps portfolio at $527 billion. But as we said above, about $61 billion of the swaps had exposure to subprime mortgages. AIG also announces that Joe Cassano, the chief of the unit that dealt in the swaps, has resigned. What AIG doesn’t disclose is that he’s kept on under a $1 million per month consulting contract.
  .
• August 6, 2008: In its second quarter filing, AIG ups its unrealized loss in 2008 from the credit-default swaps to $14.7 billion, for a grand total loss of $26.2 billion. It also discloses another impressive number: It’s posted a total of $16.5 billion in collateral.
  .
• September 16, 2008: The Federal Reserve Board saves AIG by pledging $85 billion [11]. As part of the deal, the government gets a 79.9 percent equity interest in AIG.
  .
• October 8, 2008: The Fed pledges another $37.8 billion to AIG.
  .
• November 10, 2008: Board of Governors and Treasury announce the restructuring of the government’s financial support to AIG. The restructuring includes a Treasury purchase of AIG preferred shares through the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), reduction of $85 billion revolving credit line to $60 billion and the creation of two limited liability companies (LLCs) to lend against AIG’s residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) and collateralized debt obligations (CDOs).
  .
• March 15, 2009: AIG, under pressure from regulators, releases a statement that discloses the names of its counterparties, which includes banks such as Goldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank AG. The counterparties received about $50 billion in forfeited collateral postings and Maiden Lane III payments since the Sept. 16, 2008, rescue, the statement says. The statement lists a sum of payments to each bank. It doesn’t identify the securities tied to the swaps or list the value of individual purchases by the banks.
  .
• March 18, 2009: AIG Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Edward Liddy testifies before House Financial Services Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance, and Government Sponsored Enterprises.
  .
• March 24, 2009: Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and New York Fed President William C. Dudley testify before House Committee on Financial Services.
  .
• May 7, 2009: AIG reports first quarter 2009 earnings. (Risk Management Monitor coverage)
  .
• May 21, 2009: Edward Liddy leaves AIG after eight grueling months acting as chairman and CEO with no pay. (Risk Management monitor coverage)
  .
• December 13, 2009: Eli Lehrer writes an editorial entitled “Kill AIG Now.” (Read Risk Management Monitor’s reaction to the piece, plus an in-depth comment from Lehrer himself)
  .
• Jan. 7, 2010: Bloomberg reports that e-mails obtained by Representative Darrell Issa show the New York Fed pressed AIG to withhold details from the public about the insurer’s payments to banks.
  .
• March 1, 2010: AIG agrees to sell its subsidiary American International Assurance Company Ltd. (AIA) to Prudential Financial, Inc. for approximately $35.5 billion.
  .
• March 8, 2010: AIG agrees to sell its subsidiary American Life Insurance Company (ALICO) to MetLife, Inc. for approximately $15.5 billion.
  .
• June 10, 2010: A Congressional watchdog criticized nearly every move the Fed has made during the AIG fiasco. “The government’s actions in rescuing AIG continue to have a poisonous effect on the marketplace,” said the congressional oversight panel led by Harvard University law professor Elizabeth Warren.
  .
• June 17, 2010: The SEC ends its probe of AIG and its executives.

No charges were ever filed against AIG or its executives, and since the Justice Department’s probe ended and May and the SEC’s probe ended today, no charges will likely ever be filed.

According to an internal investigation, 33 SEC employees or contractors have been watching porn on company time and company computers. Not only are these obvious and widespread violations of SEC policy — and hopefully, the policy of every company outside of that specific industry — but the transgressions all occurred at a time when the financial companies that the watchdog was supposed to be watching were, ya know, busy burning down the global economy and all.

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), the ranking member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, had this to say:

“It is nothing short of disturbing that high-ranking officials within the SEC were spending more time looking at pornography than taking action to help stave off the events that brought our nation’s economy to the brink of collapse … This stunning report should make everyone question the wisdom of moving forward with plans to give regulators like the SEC even more widespread authority. Inexplicably, rather than exercise its existing regulatory enforcement authority, SEC officials were preoccupied with other distractions.”

Exactly how widespread were these “distractions”? In at least two cases, it was certainly impairing regulators’ ability to do their jobs.

A regional office staff accountant tried to access pornographic websites nearly 1,800 times, using her SEC laptop during a two-week period. She also had about 600 pornographic images saved on her laptop hard drive.

Separately, a senior attorney at SEC headquarters admitted to downloading pornography up to eight hours a day, according to the investigation.

“In fact, this attorney downloaded so much pornography to his government computer that he exhausted the available space on the computer hard drive and downloaded pornography to CDs or DVDs that he accumulated in boxes in his office,” the inspector general’s report said.

For its part, the SEC issued this response:

“We will not tolerate the transgressions of the very few who bring discredit to their thousands of hardworking colleagues,” he said.

Depending on your moral sensibilities, the news may be worse for what it represents (employees who clearly aren’t fully committed to doing their jobs for 8 hours a day) than for what actually happened.

Either way, not a good look for the agency — both figuratively and literally.

Only in recent years, however, has the act started to gain any real teeth.

Dow Jones reports on the expansion of the FCPA of late.

There have been a rising number of FCPA enforcement actions in recent years…with 34 prosecutions netting $435.3 million in penalties in 2009, according to the Department of Justice. In 2008, Justice said 17 prosecutions netted $497.6 million in penalties.

Because of this ramped up enforcement, companies should be sure to revisit compliance efforts. In fact, we ran a piece by Jonathan Marks of Crowe Horwath on that very topic last November, offering 10 tips on how to make sure your foreign operations are on the up-and-up. (“Global Presents”/global presence … Get it? We’re very clever … We know.)

Thus, the real news now is not more fines — it is the coming overhaul of the incentives that will be awarded whistleblowers going forward. The Senate and House bills for financial regulation differ on the matter somewhat, but both will create what is being termed a “bounty program,” in which the person who reports the FCPA violation would receive a percentage of whatever the related fine ends up being.

The final percentage will obviously hinge on what is actually written into legislation, but regardless, it has the potential to turn a whistleblower into a millionaire overnight.

Among key language differences between the bills, the House version, which passed in December, has no set minimum percentage of the collected funds in a case for the SEC to pay to a whistleblower. The SEC has greater discretion in determining the bounty than it does under the Senate’s version, which has a 10% minimum. Both have a 30% maximum payout.

Theoretically, a whistleblower could come into a huge windfall based on this formula. Consider the case of Siemens AG, which paid $800 million in fines to the SEC and the DOJ in 2008 after pleading guilty to violating the FCPA. Had those penalties been the result of information obtained by a whistleblower, the person could have received a $240 million payout, or a minimum bounty of $80 million based on the Senate language.

$80 million for tipping off the G-men about a foreign infraction? That’s a lot of coin. Certainly enough to motivate employees, you would think.

Mike Koehler, an assistant professor of business law at Butler University in Indiana, who is an expert on FCPA-related issues and blogs under the name FCPAProfessor, sees such sums being an effective incentive.

“Any time you incentivize rank-and-file workers with a lot of money, rational actors are going to respond. You’re going to see an increase in enforcement activity regardless of whether the action violates the law,” Koehler said.

I know I’ll be on the look-out

The future whistleblowers of America?

• Department of Homeland Security Fail: “Tahaya Buchanan, an American fugitive who’d been on the run for more than two years, dodging a national arrest warrant for insurance fraud, has spent her years underground gainfully employed by the Department of Homeland Security.

• Our homeland security watchdog is doing something right, however, as DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano yesterday announced a “first of its kind federal-state cybersecurity partnership” between the department and the state of Michigan. As someone who reads dozens of horrible press releases every day, I can assure you that this is one of the least informative press releases ever written (and, not for nothing, DHS could probably use some proofreaders), but the gist of this thing seems to center around some sort of collaborative IT system to uncover malware and cyberattacks — or something.

• Norway’s Risk Management Association just became the 20th FERMA member.

• An earthquake early warning system in California is possible — and may be a reality in the foreseeable future, according to new research presented yesterday at the American Geophysical Union yesterday. Best part: They’re going to call it the “ShakeAlert” system. And in related news, the USGS plans to use Twitter to gather earthquake accounts from affected citizens.

• The SEC is rethinking its earlier proposal to increase the number of surprise audits for investment advisers. “In May, the SEC proposed that investment advisers undergo a surprise audit once a year to make sure that their customers’ assets are really there … Now, the SEC is fine tuning the plan and considering not requiring the some 6,000 registered investment advisers who simply deduct fees to comply with such an exam.”

• A UK-oriented look back at the regulatory landscape of 2009 and a look forward to 2010.

• With the financial collapse bankrupting Iceland and putting once-low-risk economies like those of Greece and Latvia on the ropes, Ellen Brown looks at how even the developed world nations of the EU are now bucking IMF debt-repayment protocols. And as former fat cats like Dubai have shown, today’s global climate means that even formerly nonvolatile nations need to be given more scrutiny when it comes to credit risks. “Dozens of countries have defaulted on their debts in recent decades, the most recent being Dubai, which declared a debt moratorium on November 26, 2009. If the once lavishly-rich Arab emirate can default, more desperate countries can; and when the alternative is to destroy the local economy, it is hard to argue that they shouldn’t.”

• Chewbacca and game theory. Wookies always make good risk managers.

• The video streaming site Justin.tv is under scrutiny for its inability to prevent its users from illegally uploading copyrighted content. Ultimately, this is the same fight that has been going on regarding digital intellectual property since Napster and, later, Kazaa gave rise to widespread music piracy across college campuses in the late 90s. YouTube faced similar scrutiny and many lawsuits and, like Napster, has used the “we’re not doing anything wrong — it’s our users” defense. But where Napster (and other, more brazen sharing sites like The Pirate Bay) failed, sites like YouTube have (thus far) been able to sidestep major legal recourse by having procedures (which, if we’re being honest, are only minimally effective) that ensure the removal of content if it is reported as infringing copyright. Getting back to the main story…Now under the threat of legal action, Justin.tv told its side of the story in front of the House Judiciary Committee this morning. ”Justin.tv calls on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which they claim should provide them with a safe harbor for copyright-infringing content that appears on the website before they or the appropriate right owners get a chance to remove it … The startup states that it aims to bring live video into the mainstream much like Flickr, The Huffington Post and YouTube have done for online images, news and video clips. The question is: are they really doing everything they can to fight piracy?”

• “One in five Brits are stressed, depressed or just hungover.” According to Aon, a lot of UK employees weren’t actually sick on the day they took their last sick day.

• A list of comical legal case names, including “Batman v. Commissioner, 189 F.2d 107 (5th Cir. 1951), cert. denied 342 U.S. 877 (1951)” and “United States v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins, No. 05-56274 (9th Cir. Mar. 17, 2008).” More than anything, this whole thing reminds me of this guy, who is sort of a personal hero of mine.

Find an interesting link? Email me any stories, videos or images you come across and would like to see included. Or just follow me on Twitter @RiskMgmt and pass it along that way.

To advance our mission of bringing you all the risk management news that’s fit to print, we will be doing these “Risk Management Links of the Day” posts roughly … you guessed it … every day. Hopefully, it will be a nice blend of things that you need to know and things that are just interesting and you might not have otherwise come across in your daily internet travels.

Shifting through all the news of the day takes some time, of course, so please do send along any interesting news items or off-beat, risk-related stories you come across to me at jwade@rims.org. Enjoy.

• In October, our own Emily Holbrook discussed the dangers of text messaging while driving in the Risk Management article “Unsafe at Any Speed.” Well, according to this “Driven to Distraction” piece, it seems that the problem of driving dangers related to phones goes back well before even the cell phone, and has in fact been a controversial topic since the 1960s, when car phone manufacturers used advertisements (like the one above) and other strategies to help encourage users to talk while they drive. “Critics of the [mobile phone] industry argue that its education efforts over the years provided a weak counterbalance to its encouragement of cellphone use by drivers and to its efforts to fight regulations banning the use of cellphones while driving.”

• The Copenhagen Climate talks take a turn for the irrelevant as major developing countries like India and China threaten to walk out in protest.  The New York Times has all the coverage from the summit while the Insurance Information Institute supplies an in-depth breakdown of climate change-related insurance issues.

• In boneheaded government regulator news: The TSA inadvertently made many of its passenger screening protocols public knowledge when it posted its 93-page operating manual online last Spring. It addition to detailed technical info about x-ray screening and bomb detection, the error revealed 12 countries whose passport holders are automatically given heightened security scrutiny and contained pictures of the credentials used by CIA officials, Congress members and the federal air marshals. “Stewart A. Baker, a former assistant secretary at the Department of Homeland Security, said that the manual will become a textbook for those seeking to penetrate aviation security and that its leaking was serious. ‘It increases the risk that terrorists will find a way through the defenses,’ Baker said. ‘The problem is there are so many different holes that while [the TSA] can fix any one of them by changing procedures and making adjustments in the process . . . they can’t change everything about the way they operate.’” Real Cracker Jack job on this one, TSA.

• The House has passed the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (HR 4173), which would create a Federal Insurance Office and a Financial Services Oversight Council, by a vote of 223 to 202. Senate approval awaits.

• December’s Harper’s Magazine featured an excellent yet disturbing cover story: “The General Electric Superfund: Why the Hudson River Will Never Run Clean.” (Subscription required)

• A federal court ruled that an attorney’s personal emails remain private even if sent from a work computer. Says one of the attorneys involved: ”Where someone who uses their company e-mail, whether with the Justice Department or someone else, intends the communication to be confidential and takes reasonable steps to ensure the confidentiality … there is no waiver of the attorney-client privilege.”

• Of all the fallout from the September 2008 market collapse, the Bank of America acquisition of Merrill Lynch has been the most controversial. The Atlantic featured the best (and most accessible) article I’ve seen on the topic, detailing the unusual nature of the meetings that BoA’s leadership had with the SEC and the Fed as the merger was being finalized and strongly suggesting that Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke essentially strong-armed the bank’s CEO Ken Lewis into acquiring Merrill, despite strong reservations about the book-keeping info that was being revealed through due diligence. This piece by Corporate Counsel, however, suggests that BoA did plenty of bullying of its own in forcing the DC officials to pony up more bailout money than they wanted to in order to mollify the bank’s concerns about Merrill’s balance sheet and prevent BoA’s leadership from using it’s last-minute opt-out provision (known as a “material adverse chance” or MAC clause) to cancel the deal before it was finalized. The SEC has been investigating the details of the merger for some time. And on Friday, the watchdog announced that the investigation is being ramped up. Further developments are certainly forthcoming in the month’s ahead. In the meantime, you can also check Corporate Counsel’s exhaustive coverage of the controversy.

• FERMA is advocating for changes in the European Commission’s block exemption rules.

• “Getting It Right and Getting It Wrong with New Media” highlights some companies that are overcoming the risks of social media to heighten their brands — and some who need to rethink their strategies.

• An analyst with Celent sees rough times ahead for the P/C industry. Says Mike Fitzgerald: “The negative rating outlook issued by Fitch Ratings [Wednesday] for U.S. property and casualty is warranted and, in addition to the pricing and demand concerns mentioned in the press release, there are loss and expense pressures which should dampen expectations.”

Find an interesting link? Email me any stories, videos or images you come across and would like to see included. Or just follow me on Twitter @RiskMgmt and pass it along that way.

Among the proposed changes within the 137-page report is a rule that would force public corporations to disclose the board’s role in overseeing the management of inherent operational and financial risks.

Disclosures of the board’s role in the risk management process may also benefit investors. Expanded disclosure of the board’s role in risk management may enable investors to better evaluate whether the board is exercising appropriate oversight of risk management.

The report goes on to state that the proposed amendments should, among other things, increase the efficiency and competitiveness of the U.S. capital markets by providing investors with additional information on risk incentives and corporate risk management practices.

The key recommendation? A change in short-term incentives for employees:

Indeed, one of the many contributing factors cited as a basis for the current market turmoil is that at a number of large financial institutions the short-term incentives created by their compensation policies were misaligned with the long-term well being of the companies. By contrast, well-designed compensation policies may enhance a company’s business interests by encouraging innovation and appropriate levels of risk taking.

The proposed ammendments to disclosure are likely to be implemented in hopes of preventing a future financial crisis like the one we’ve seen and are currently recovering from, albeit slowly. This proposed SEC rule proves that risk management will continue to be at the forefront of every action and decision a public company will make.

How is your company preparing to spread the role of risk management and implement SEC rule 33-9052?