We were on a conference call with investors and traders about what happened with the housing bubble.
“We are still talking about the housing market,” one of the people told me.
The other told me he was in “panic mode.”
“We have no idea how to fix it.
We are just losing $20 billion a day,” he said.
A few minutes later, another trader chimed in.
“It’s so crazy.
We’re not even talking about that anymore.”
We’ve been doing this for years.
We know the answer.
The answer is simple.
It’s the SEC.
So what’s the answer?
A lot of people have told me over the years that the SEC has always been the only way for the SEC to solve the problem of money laundering.
“The SEC has the most powerful enforcement agency in the country,” said Peter Bensinger, a partner at law firm Jones Day who has represented investors in investigations into money laundering at the SEC, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and the Justice Department.
“You can do things the SEC does that you couldn’t do under the rules.”
And yet, the SEC hasn’t been able to make much headway.
It has spent decades trying to solve money laundering cases through the courts, which has been unsuccessful.
And its enforcement efforts have been mostly focused on the federal government.
The problem with the SEC is that it has had to rely on federal prosecutors to help it fight cases that could easily have been solved through a more aggressive enforcement approach.
And while the SEC and its partners have made progress, the agency has had a history of failures in other areas.
For example, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which is the agency that sets interest rates, did not do enough to investigate the manipulation of the LIBOR rates, which was responsible for more than a trillion dollars of the money that flowed into and out of the financial system during the financial crisis.
Also, it was not clear when the SEC would start taking on cases of money-laundering.
As it is, most of the cases it handles are still being prosecuted by federal prosecutors.
What’s more, in some of the more important cases, the cases are being handled by prosecutors who are no longer in the enforcement divisions of the SEC that were established to address money laundering problems.
But there is a growing sense of hope among financial experts that the agency is finally beginning to make some headway in cracking down on money laundering, and that the pendulum is swinging back in the direction of more aggressive efforts.
Why is the SEC so ineffective?
One of the problems with the way the SEC handles money laundering is that, as the name implies, the division oversees money.
The SEC is responsible for the creation, regulation, and enforcement of the nation’s financial system, including rules that govern how money moves through it.
That is to say, the goal of the agency’s job is to ensure that the money in the system flows smoothly and safely.
The main thing that regulators can do to fix the problem is to use their power to force banks to stop moving money and that would be easier said than done.
But the SEC doesn’t do much of either.
It relies on its own staff and the work of its enforcement division, which relies on the resources of the federal prosecutors and the help of the U.S. attorneys’ offices across the country.
So the problem has always seemed to be that the federal governments, particularly the Justice and Treasury departments, didn’t have the resources to go after money laundering by the big banks.
The federal government has been very effective at prosecuting money laundering in the past, but they have never been able or willing to go to the courts to do it.
To make matters worse, the big financial institutions are reluctant to help.
The financial industry has a long history of not wanting to cooperate with the government, which would lead to a more effective approach.
If you can’t get them to help, then they’re not going to cooperate.
That means they end up losing money.
And that means fewer prosecutions.
Another problem is that the enforcement division has a history that goes back to the 1970s, when the financial industry was in its infancy.
There was no money to go around, and there was little incentive for banks to do anything that might lead to them getting caught.
The government had to go on the offensive to get banks to start paying attention to the financial problems that were developing in the economy.
But that was years ago.
And as the economy has changed, the financial sector has grown more sophisticated, and it has become more difficult to stop the money laundering that is taking place.
There are some things the Justice department can do, including taking more aggressive action, but those are the exceptions to the rule.
Finally, there is another problem: There’s a long tradition of the Justice departments