La SEC y el valor de la distancia institucional

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) was established following the 1929 stock market crash with the goal of instilling confidence in public capital markets. However, a recent Supreme Court ruling in the United States, which effectively grants significant powers to the head of the government, may jeopardize the reputation of the SEC's strict independence.

The agency's mission, as stated by the SEC itself, is to protect investors, ensure fair, orderly and efficient markets, and promote capital formation. This triple mandate and its global reference have been established over time. However, recent events threaten this position. The genesis can be traced back to the removal by Donald Trump of Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, a representative of the Federal Trade Commission, the US authority responsible for competition and consumer protection.

After Slaughter's petition was rejected by the Supreme Court after Trump dismissed her without any legal wrongdoing, a situation that was necessary until now to justify her removal, this ruling may have indirect consequences for organizations with a similar structure like the SEC. In the US, a "Commission" is typically a specific form of independent federal agency.

The five commissioners are appointed by the US president and must be confirmed by the Senate. Subsequently, the president designates one of them as the chairperson. Once confirmed, they are protected in the exercise of their duties. Nonetheless, the recent decision grants Trump and future presidents greater control and effectively ends the independent character of regulatory bodies.

Law firm Holland & Knight has already issued a warning to investors, listed companies, advisors, intermediaries and other entities regulated by the SEC: "Filers, advisers, intermediaries and other entities regulated by the SEC should prepare for potential changes in supervision priorities, information requirements and regulatory agendas."

The previous SEC Chair Gary Gensler voluntarily resigned prior to Trump's arrival, anticipating an inevitable dismissal. For investors, this decision represents a rupture in the institutional architecture of the world's largest capital market. It would be naive to assume that the nature of regulatory supervision would not be altered.

This does not mean that investigations by the SEC will necessarily be politically motivated, but it does condition their development. There is no doubt that the supposed solidity of investor protection in the US has always had a certain legend attached to it. In response to recent crises, the SEC responded by opening investigations and approving resolutions such as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (to reinforce the reliability of financial information) and the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010 (which hardened supervision of the financial system).

Compliance with regulations depends not only on the real independence, but also on confidence in that independence. If that confidence erodes, incentives change. Corporate governance mechanisms could be relaxed under more lax controls, to the detriment of their own shareholders. Investors must question whether the application of the norm, the priorities of investigation and the sanction regime will continue to be exercised with the same rigor when they conflict with the dominant political line.

The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) already offers an example of how political preferences can quickly impact systemically important markets. Since March 2025, William Pulte, a close collaborator of Trump, has been leading the FHFA. Within three months of taking office, he commissioned proposals for cryptocurrencies to be recognized as reserve assets in mortgage risk assessments, without needing to be converted into dollars first, provided they could be verified on US-regulated platforms.

Democratic senators warned with good reason of the risks of such a study, as it would introduce a highly volatile market with an incipient regulatory framework into the core of the US mortgage system. The history and tradition of the SEC should still serve as a guide. However, the depth of the US market does not replace institutional distance. And it is precisely this distance that is now at stake.