SEC Commissioners Bid Farewell to Former Chair Gensler

Steven Lofchie Commentary by Steven Lofchie
"Although as Commissioners we approached policy issues from different perspectives, there was always dignity in our differences. Chair Gensler has been committed to bipartisan engagement and a respectful exchange of ideas ... For that we are deeply grateful."
Caroline A. Crenshaw, Hester M. Peirce, Mark T. Uyeda; SEC Commissioners
"Although as Commissioners we approached policy issues from different perspectives, there was always dignity in our differences. Chair Gensler has been committed to bipartisan engagement and a respectful exchange of ideas ... For that we are deeply grateful."
Caroline A. Crenshaw, Hester M. Peirce, Mark T. Uyeda; SEC Commissioners

SEC Commissioners Caroline A. Crenshaw, Hester M. Peirce and Mark T. Uyeda highlighted broad agency achievements under outgoing Chair Gensler and expressed gratitude for his commitment "to bipartisan engagement and a respectful exchange of ideas." 

In a joint statement, the Commissioners said:

"We have finalized rules that have promoted market integrity and corporate governance, streamlined open-end fund disclosures, reduced settlement times, and passed needed reforms to the plans corporate insiders use to buy and sell company stock, among many other policy changes. Together we have returned billions of dollars to investors harmed by violations of the securities laws and helped educate the public on the risks and rewards of investing their savings."

The Commissioners acknowledged that they approached policy issues from different perspectives than Mr. Gensler, but emphasized that "there was always dignity in [these] differences." 

The Commissioners thanked Mr. Gensler for his leadership and extensive public service, suggested that he may be back and signed off with: "so long for now."

Commentary

The Commissioners showed grace in their farewell statement to Chair Gensler. The list of achievements that the Commissioners (two Republicans) cited, however, failed to mention the many rule adoptions under litigation or the flawed clearing mandate. That might mean they are not supportive of those rule adoptions. Or it could mean nothing (but that would be a less interesting comment).  

Email me about this

Tags