1963 / 1964 - GOV (House) - Investor Protection - Part 2 - Harley Staggers (D-WV)
- 1963 / 1964 - GOV (House) - Investor Protection, Harley Staggers (D-WV)
- Part 1 - April 3; November 19, 20, 21, 1963 - 684p
- Part 2 - December 3, 4, and 5, 1963; January 21, 22, 23; February 4, 5, 18, and 19, 1964 --- [BonkNote] --- 756p
- House - Subcommittee of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce
- [SEC Report]
- (p87) - William L. Cary, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) - In its 23d annual report (1957) this Commission, describing its most pressing enforcement problems, included this statement:
- “Recent economic conditions have been relatively favorable for the sale of promotional stocks of new ventures, particularly in fields in which the securities of established enterprises have shown marked gains.
- For example, many new insurance and financial ventures have been promoted, particularly in the south-central, southwestern, and southeastern parts of the country, and their securities have been distributed either through registration or regulation A, or more commonly, in reliance upon the intrastate exemption.
- Many of these issues and the sales techniques employed in their distribution appear to involve abuses and possible violations of the antifraud and other provisions of the Securities Act or the Securities Exchange Act, which require extensive investigation.
- The large number of these promotions and the rapidity with which they have increased has placed a most serious burden on the Commission’s field enforcement personnel charged with the conduct of such investigations.”
- Similar statements were made in the 22d and 24th annual reports of the Commission, and these problems have not disappeared.
- In this connection, I enclose a copy of a memorandum submitted during the hearings on S. 1642 which details certain fraud cases involving over-the-counter insurance companies.
- (p302) - William L. Cary, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) - There are some insurance companies, I think the outstanding one being Metropolitan, which did not want to get into the variable annuity business at all.