...assuming that SEC and other regulators themselves are rational actors in this matter strikes me as being overly optimistic. They aren't immune to partisan politics; and may suffer from regulatory capture. We should at least be open to the risk that some self-regulating processes may simply be inefficient.
Perhaps I misunderstood this, but it seems to say that since stock regulators are human with inherent human failings, they should take a larger role in stock trading? That seems confused; what is meant here?
I'm simply saying that you should not assume that because the SEC encourages certain self-regulating features that that approach is necessarily optimal.
You can claim there are problems with regulators and then argue for better or stricter regulations. Assuming infallible regulators are necessary for any regulation at all is naive and self-defeating.
Perhaps I misunderstood this, but it seems to say that since stock regulators are human with inherent human failings, they should take a larger role in stock trading? That seems confused; what is meant here?