more-arw search

Q&A Forum

Is the SEC Office of the Whistleblower an example of over-regulation or added security to the Capital Markets?

As part of the Dodd-Frank Act, signed by President Obama on July 21, 2010, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) was required to amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, to establish a separate office within the SEC to administer a whistleblower program. On May 25, 2011, the amendment was finalized. On August 12, 2011, the Office of the Whistleblower in the Division of Enforcement went live.

Results are as follows -

  • "Annual Report on the Dodd-Frank Whistleblower Program" (November 2011) - For the two months of operations in 2011, 334 tips were received.  Top three issues - Manipulation (16.2%); Offering Fraud (15.6%) and Trading Pricing (5.1%).
  • "Annual Report on the Dodd-Frank Whistleblower Program" (November 2012) - For the twelve months of operations in 2012, 3,001 tips were received.  Top three issues - Corporate Disclosure and Financials (18.2%), Offering Fraud (15.5%) and Manipulation (15.2%).

One year after the start of the program -- "SEC Issues First Whistleblower Program Award - Washington, D.C., Aug. 21, 2012 - A whistleblower who helped the Securities and Exchange Commission stop a multi-million dollar fraud will receive nearly $50,000 — the first payout from a new SEC program to reward people who provide evidence of securities fraud."

The questuion I posed above really can not be answered.  How do you measure success?  If next year we find that 300 awards were granted (10% conversion), can we say the program is a success as we have identified dishonest situations, based on Tips..  Conversely, if we only identify three situations, can we say the program is a success as it deters the defrauding of investors?

What are your thoughts?


(Agent, JKS Solutions, Inc.) |

10% award is equivalent to the IRS bounty. Just now you can report financial fraud or offering fraud which there is a good bit of and make 10% on that.

See if accountants were truly entrepreneurial they would open fraud invesigations practices and perform the investigations themselves based on tips from the public and share in the 10% award with the people who blew the whistle.

That would be a privatisation of the entire process. Perhaps the 10% award in that case would actually be a cost savings to the government because they would not have to spend the money to perform the investigations.

I should get a Nobel Peace prize for that idea.


Get Free Membership

By signing up, you will receive emails from Proformative regarding Proformative programs, events, community news and activity. You can withdraw your consent at any time. Contact Us.

Business Exchange

Browse the Business Exchange to find information, resources and peer reviews to help you select the right solution for your business.

Learn more

Contribute to Community

If you’re interested in learning more about contributing to your Proformative community, we have many ways for you to get involved. Please email [email protected] to learn more about becoming a speaker or contributing to the blogs/Q&A Forum.