Support SIPC in its SEC Case on Stanford
Covering the Stanford customers through SIPC is a misfit solution that sets an unsustainable precedent for the future.
The NAIBD serves as an advocate for the Broker/Dealer community. It is our mission to positively impact rules, regulations, and legislation by facilitating a consistent, productive relationship between industry professionals and regulatory organizations and by providing education and member benefits for Broker/Dealers.
Today, we are writing to express our support of Securities Investor Protection Corporation?s (?SIPC?) stance versus the SEC in the unprecedented lawsuit demanding SIPC guarantee the value of offshore certificates of deposit issued by Stanford International Bank Ltd (?Stanford?). Our position is based on the facts, which include the legal limitations of SIPC protections, the allegedly fraudulent circumstances surrounding the losses incurred by Stanford investors, and the physical nature of the securities issued to Stanford investors.
SIPC?s own website clearly articulates their and our positions:
?The Securities Investor Protection Corporation was not chartered by Congress to combat fraud.?
http://www.sipc.org/who/whysipc.html
We do not believe that SIPC or the brokerage industry should provide a backstop for events that transpired outside of the United States, for fraudulent investment schemes, in instances in which investors sought unrealistically high returns, and/or when physical certificates, however worthless, remain in the possession of investors.
In summary, we believe that covering the Stanford customers through SIPC is a misfit solution that sets an unsustainable precedent for the future. NAIBD encourages its members and the broad securities industry to express its support to SIPC by signing onto the petition below.
Today, we are writing to express our support of Securities Investor Protection Corporation?s (?SIPC?) stance versus the SEC in the unprecedented lawsuit demanding SIPC guarantee the value of offshore certificates of deposit issued by Stanford International Bank Ltd (?Stanford?). Our position is based on the facts, which include the legal limitations of SIPC protections, the allegedly fraudulent circumstances surrounding the losses incurred by Stanford investors, and the physical nature of the securities issued to Stanford investors.
SIPC?s own website clearly articulates their and our positions:
?The Securities Investor Protection Corporation was not chartered by Congress to combat fraud.?
http://www.sipc.org/who/whysipc.html
We do not believe that SIPC or the brokerage industry should provide a backstop for events that transpired outside of the United States, for fraudulent investment schemes, in instances in which investors sought unrealistically high returns, and/or when physical certificates, however worthless, remain in the possession of investors.
In summary, we believe that covering the Stanford customers through SIPC is a misfit solution that sets an unsustainable precedent for the future. NAIBD encourages its members and the broad securities industry to express its support to SIPC by signing onto the petition below.
View Comments