{"id":3971,"date":"2025-04-04T08:00:00","date_gmt":"2025-04-04T08:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sites.lsa.umich.edu\/mje\/?p=3971"},"modified":"2025-09-09T19:43:25","modified_gmt":"2025-09-09T19:43:25","slug":"hiding-in-plain-sight-the-madoff-scandal-and-regulatory-failure","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sites.lsa.umich.edu\/mje\/2025\/04\/04\/hiding-in-plain-sight-the-madoff-scandal-and-regulatory-failure\/","title":{"rendered":"Hiding in Plain Sight: The Madoff Scandal and Regulatory Failure"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Written by: Natalia Nunez<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Financial market observers are sounding the alarm as the Trump administration pushes to weaken the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regulations and loosen restrictions on financial markets. The administration embarked on its deregulatory agenda by diluting oversight mechanisms in the cryptocurrency sector\u2013a move praised by proponents as a catalyst for innovation and economic growth. However, critics warn that such policies strip away crucial regulatory safeguards, opening the door to systematic corruption and unchecked financial misconduct. American financial history, marred by cycles of deregulation, asymmetrical information, and misplaced trust, offers a sobering reminder of the consequences. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

As economic forecasts darken and consumer confidence wanes, the pro-cyclical nature of corruption becomes particularly relevant. Fraudulent schemes, often masked by economic booms, surface when liquidity tightens and credit contracts (R. Z. Aliber et al., 2023). In moments of economic uncertainty, the specter of financial misconduct reemerges\u2013serving as a stark reminder of previous regulatory failures. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The unraveling of Bernie Madoff\u2019s fraudulent operation at the peak of the 2008 financial crisis embodies this very tale. Beginning in 2006, the U.S housing boom began to dissipate, and the downturn prompted a flood of foreclosures on homes purchased with risky subprime mortgages (Eren, 2017). By 2007, the collapse of the U.S housing bubble had triggered a global liquidity crisis, and major financial institutions were promptly rendered insolvent (Eren, 2017). Central banks around the world scrambled to inject liquidity into the markets, but the collapse persisted. By 2008, Bear Stearns had been sold in a government-backed rescue deal, Lehman Brothers had declared bankruptcy, and American International Group (AIG) required a massive bailout (Eren, 2017). In response the U.S government introduced the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), a $475 billion effort to ensure the stability of institutions deemed \u201ctoo big to fail.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

While Wall Street was coming down in one big blow, Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities continued to report remarkably steady returns\u2013averaging one percent per month (Federal Bureau of Investigation, n.d.). Investors were reassured by the stability, but panic continued to erupt, and investors wanted out. Investors demanded a total of $1.5 billion in withdrawals, yet Madoff had no more than $300 million left in the bank (Federal Bureau of Investigation, n.d.). Madoff desperately sought for an investor willing to grant him an infusion of cash to cover the difference, but amid a liquidity crisis, he found no one. Madoff\u2019s Ponzi scheme\u2013one 20 years in the making\u2013was unravelling. By year’s end, Madoff would be charged with securities fraud (Federal Bureau of Investigation, n.d.). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Madoff\u2019s decades-long fraud was not merely the result of one man\u2019s deception but a glaring failure of the SEC, which repeatedly failed its due diligence, overlooking warnings and clear red flags. Madoff swindled investors and regulators alike into what remains the largest Ponzi scheme in American history, offering us all a reminder of the catastrophic consequences that emerge in financial markets infiltrated by asymmetrical information, where one party in a financial transaction possess significantly more knowledge than the other\u2013allowing operations to occur with too little transparency and too much unchecked power. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The reigning question remains: How did Madoff orchestrate a 20-year Ponzi scheme under the watchful eye of Wall Street and the SEC, despite repeated warnings and red flags\u2013hiding in plain sight from regulators, auditors, and some of the most sophisticated financial institutions in the world?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The answer lies in a complex interplay of mass regulatory failure, information asymmetry, and a culture facilitating multi-level corruption. However, Madoff did not begin his career as a swindler. In the same year he graduated from Long Island’s Hofstra University with a degree in political science, he pooled his savings, and with a $50,000 loan from his father-in-law, founded Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities (BLMIS).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Madoff\u2019s firm primarily operated in the over-the-counter market, specializing in penny stocks, low-cost stocks not listed in major exchange markets like the New York Stock Exchange (Eren, 2017). Madoff found grand success capitalizing on automated innovations. In the 1970s BLMIS was one of the first firms to join the National Association of Securities Dealers Automated Quotations (NASDAQ) system, which created the first automated trading platform, and where he would serve as a chairman later in his career (Eren, 2017). His competitive edge manifested from his ability to adapt to automated revolution, while his competitors drowned in paper records. At one point, he was the largest market maker on the NASDAQ and the sixth-largest market maker for Standard & Poor\u2019s 500 stocks, and the firm held $300 million in assets (Eren, 2017).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Parallel to his legitimate enterprise, in the 1960s, he began investing money for his father-in-law Saul Alpern\u2019s friends and clients at the Alpern & Heller accounting firm. Overtime, he cultivated an affinity network within the rich societies of New York City and Palm Beach, specifically within the Jewish community (Eren, 2017). The network expanded as he became renowned for providing clients with steady, above-market returns. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

By the early 1990s, domestic and international feeder fund managers\u2013driven by lucrative fees\u2013funneled billions from charities, universities, retirement accounts, and individual investors into Madoff\u2019s operations (Eren, 2017). Major banks like HSBC, BNP Paribas, and Grupo Santander also contributed, further sustaining his apparent financial empire.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Madoff attributed his success to his split strike conversion strategy, claiming to invest client funds in a basket of S&P 100 stocks while hedging with options to minimize risk, periodically shifting funds into treasury bills via strategic market entry and exit (Eren, 2017). Madoff\u2019s clients receive monthly statements confirming his trades and investments, along with a 1099 to report their yearly earnings (Eren, 2017). The illusion of legitimacy was compelling. It is now known; it was entirely a facade. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Although there is still some uncertainty as to when Madoff\u2019s legitimate business became a Ponzi scheme, the prevailing narrative holds that early on in his side business, he made a bad trade and lost a significant amount of money (Eren, 2017). One lie snowballed to a 20-year scheme. Securities were neither bought nor sold. Instead, his clients\u2019 funds were deposited into a bank account at Chase Manhattan. From 1986 to 2008, Madoff’s Chase 703 account received $150 billion in transfers and deposits, maintaining a balance between three and five billion dollars (Eren, 2017). When a client wanted to withdraw money, the funds came from this collective pool of other clients\u2019 money\u2013a classic Ponzi scheme. Like all Ponzi schemes, the fraud relied on attracting new investors to remain solvent (Eren, 2017).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sometime in the early 1970s, Madoff hired David Kugel for his legitimate brokerage business. Kugel had mastered the art of convertible bond arbitrage, which consisted of scouring the market to find bonds offered by companies that were priced lower than the company\u2019s stocks. Once identified, one could buy the less expensive bond, convert it to stock, sell the stock, and pocket the difference (Federal Bureau of Investigation, n.d.). Kugel\u2019s legitimate expertise in arbitrage became instrumental in Madoff\u2019s fraudulent scheme. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Together, they fabricated backdated trades to support the illusion of consistent returns for investors, meaning trade confirmations and account statements were manipulated to reflect profitable transactions that never actually occurred (Federal Bureau of Investigation, n.d.). Although the falsifications were meticulous, between June 1992 and December 2008, the SEC received six substantive complaints that should have triggered serious scrutiny of Madoff\u2019s hedge fund operations (U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 2009). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yet, in each instance, the SEC failed to act decisively. The first complaint in 1992, concerned an unregistered investment firm, Avellino & Bienes, which was offering “100% safe” investments with high, stable returns to select customers (U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 2009). The SEC\u2019s investigation revealed that Madoff exercised all client funds and made each investment decision. The SEC determined that Avellino & Bienes was likely operating a Ponzi scheme and forced them to return investor funds. Yet they failed to consider Madoff’s involvement. This oversight was later described as an error of “common sense” (U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 2009). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Then came Harry Markopolos, a financial analyst who identified Madoff\u2019s scheme nearly a decade before it collapsed. Markopolos first became suspicious in the late 1990s when he worked as an options trader at a Boston firm that was losing clients to Madoff\u2019s seemingly unbeatable strategy (Kestenbaum, D. 2010, March 2). His boss asked him to replicate Madoff\u2019s approach, but Markopolos quickly realized that was impossible\u2013because the numbers simply didn\u2019t add up (Kestenbaum, D. 2010, March 2). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In May 2000, Markopolos presented the SEC\u2019s Boston District Office an eight-page analysis questioning the legitimacy of Madoff\u2019s reported returns. Markopolos outlined two scenarios: either Madoff\u2019s returns were legitimate but derived from an undisclosed, possibly illegal source, or “the entire fund is nothing more than a Ponzi scheme.” He flagged Madoff\u2019s “perfect market-timing ability” and his refusal to allow independent audits (U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 2009). These warnings were dismissed. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In March 2001, Markopolos submitted a second, more detailed complaint. His analysis showed the inconsistencies between Madoff\u2019s returns and the general market. Madoff had only three down months compared to the market\u2019s 26, and his worst-performing month had a decline of just -1.44%, while the market\u2019s worst drop was -14.58% (U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 2009). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The SEC official, reviewing the submission, sent an internal email stating, “I don\u2019t think we should pursue this matter further” (U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 2009). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In May 2003, a hedge fund manager submitted another complaint, raising specific concerns: Madoff claimed to trade $8-10 billion in options, but major brokers reports were inconsistent with the corresponding volume in the market. Madoff\u2019s fee structure was highly unusual\u2013he did not charge the standard performance and management fees, making his profit strategy unknown (U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 2009). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The manager pointed at his inexplicably unique strategy, and lack of correlation between the alleged returns and equity market patterns, but the SEC did not probe further. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Internal emails from another financial institution surfaced in April of 2004. Private investors, who were conducting basic investigations, were suspicious of Madoff. They had identified his improbable favorable trade execution, misrepresentation of options trading, and unshakably consistent returns (U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 2009). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

One email detailed why Madoff\u2019s reported option trades were mathematically impossible, noting the lack of sufficient market volume to support the statements. SEC examiners reviewed these emails but eventually discounted the claim (U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 2009). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Then, in October 2005, an anonymous informant explicitly stated: “If my suspicions are true, then they are running a highly sophisticated scheme on a massive scale. And they have been doing it for a long time” (U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 2009).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That same month, Markopolos submitted a comprehensive analysis titled “The World\u2019s Largest Hedge Fund is a Fraud.” It laid out approximately 30 red flags, including the impossibility of Madoff\u2019s returns, the improbability of his reported trade volume, and the sheer lack of transparency in his operations (U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 2009). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

December 2006, another complaint alleged that Madoff had co-mingled over $10 billion in funds and maintained “two sets of records.” A follow-up in March 2008 to the SEC Chairman\u2019s office emphasized that “Madoff keeps his most interesting records on his personal computer, which is always on his person” (U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 2009). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to the OIG\u2019s expert, “the most critical step in examining or investigating a potential Ponzi scheme is to verify the subject\u2019s trading through an independent third party.” (\u201cReport of Investigation Executive Summary – SEC.gov\u201d) Yet, at no point did the SEC verify Madoff\u2019s trading records independently (U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 2009). Despite conducting two formal investigations and three examinations into Madoff\u2019s investment advisory business, they never launched a proper Ponzi scheme probe.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The SEC\u2019s failures were both procedural and systemic: They failed to verify third-party records: During the 1992 examination, the SEC relied on Madoff\u2019s own submissions rather than obtaining records from the Depository Trust Company (DTC). The OIG concluded that had they had done so, there was an excellent chance the scheme would have been discovered in 1992.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Further, the investigation teams were understaffed and inexperienced. Instead of scrutinizing the possibility of a Ponzi scheme, they focused on lesser concerns, such as whether Madoff was front-running. Additionally, SEC offices lacked coordination. In one instance, two SEC offices were simultaneously probing Madoff\u2019s firm without either realizing the other was conducting an identical investigation (U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 2009). Madoff himself informed one team that another team had already obtained the information they were seeking.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The SEC accepted implausible explanations. When SEC examiners found discrepancies, they merely asked Madoff for clarification. His responses, which would often contradict each other, were accepted without further questioning. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

When the SEC did attempt to probe further, they often failed to follow through. A request for Madoff\u2019s options positions was abandoned, even after receiving data that contradicted his claims. Similarly, a draft letter to European financial firms seeking confirmation of Madoff\u2019s trades was never sent. In totality, the SEC failed to follow through on leads given by external sources. In one case, an SEC official dismissed a financial institution\u2019s report stating that Madoff had no recorded trades during a given period (U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 2009). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Not only did they fail to conduct thorough investigations internally, but they also dismissed detailed analyses conducted by outsiders. Markopolos\u2019s exhaustive reports, filled with sophisticated financial analysis, were met with skepticism and disbelief by SEC enforcement staff, who seemed unable or unwilling to grasp the depth of the deception.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The SEC’s repeated failure to uncover Madoff’s fraud represents one of the most scandalous cases of regulatory breakdown in American financial history. Beyond the specific investigative missteps, the SEC suffered structurally, rendering the agency incapable of fulfilling its duty of protecting investors. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Harry Markopolos’s frustrating five-year campaign to alert regulators, is the epitome of this dysfunction. Following Madoff’s arrest, Markopolos testified, describing the SEC as “financially illiterate” and largely held the belief the SEC was suffering from systemic capture by the industry it was meant to regulate (Stillman, 2009). His mathematical analyses demonstrated the impossibility of Madoff’s returns but was quickly brushed off. One SEC official later admitted they had difficulty understanding the derivatives and options strategies Markopolos described (U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 2009).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The SEC’s institutional culture contributed significantly to the failure at large. Former SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt later acknowledged that the agency had developed adverse feelings against whistleblowers (U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 2009). They were largely viewed as threats as opposed to valuable sources of information. Markopolos often found officials disinterested and dismissive, when approaching the SEC. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The revolving door between the SEC and Wall Street further compromised regulations. A 2011 study by the Project on Government Oversight found that between 2006 and 2010, 219 former SEC officials filed 789 disclosure statements indicating their intent to represent clients before the Commission (New York City Bar Association, 2013). This constant flow of personnel between regulator and regulated created conflicts of interest and cultural alignment with industry perspectives rather than investor protection (New York City Bar Association, 2013). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Budget constraints further obstructed the SEC. Between 2005 and 2007, financial innovation accelerated along with market complexity. Yet, the SEC’s enforcement division saw its staff reduced by 146 positions (Brooklyn Law Journal, 2021). This personnel shortage resulted in inexperienced junior employees conducting investigations (U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 2009). The agency also suffered from technological inferiority compared to the industry it regulated. While Wall Street firms invested heavily in advanced trading and data systems, the SEC was limited to outdated technology, hindering its ability to analyze modern financial instruments (Brooklyn Law Journal, 2021). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Madoff scheme thrived in a financial ecosystem characterized by profound information asymmetry. This asymmetry wasn’t incidental to Madoff’s fraud; it was a fundamental enabler. Central to Madoff’s operation was his cultivation of exclusivity. His investment services were never advertised; He created the illusion that he accepted money to invest only from a few close friends and the close friends of his close friends. Later investigation showed that he had more than 4500 \u2018close friends\u2019 (R. Z. Aliber et al., 2023). This approach established an artificial scarcity that discouraged due diligence, potential investors feared questioning the opportunity too deeply, in fear of losing their privileged access. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

When investors or financial professionals did raise questions about his strategy, Madoff rebutted them with claims of proprietary methods (Federal Bureau of Investigation, n.d.). He guarded his supposed split-strike conversion technique as a trade secret, refusing to explain precisely how he achieved such remarkable returns. When the hedge fund Fairfield Greenwich Group, which ultimately lost $7.5 billion to Madoff’s fraud, pressed for more transparency about his trading operations, Madoff threatened to terminate their relationship (Henriques, 2011).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Madoff’s background as an industry pioneer in electronic trading gave credibility to his claims of having developed sophisticated algorithmic trading strategies. When investors or regulators questioned such consistent returns, his technical explanations involved complex arbitrage techniques that were rarely understood, leaving most to feel unqualified to question his methods (U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 2009). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The layering of feeder funds created additional asymmetry by inserting intermediaries between investors and Madoff. Major feeder funds like Fairfield Greenwich, Tremont Group, and Access International Advisors collected billions from investors worldwide, then pooled these funds and invested them with Madoff. This structure obscured the ultimate destination of investor capital and diffused responsibility for due diligence. When individual investors questioned returns or operations, they were referred to the feeder funds, which themselves had limited visibility into Madoff’s actual trading activity (U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 2009). Even sophisticated institutional investors found themselves at an information disadvantage. When Renaissance Technologies LLC investment banking arm attempted to replicate Madoff’s options strategy, they discovered that the volume of options trading required to implement his strategy simply didn’t exist in the market. Although Renaissance had determined Madoff\u2019s strategy was implausible, and reduced their stake by half, the manager admits he never \u201centertained the thought that it was truly fraudulent (U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 2009).\u201d He reasoned that Madoff’s prominent position and connections likely gave him access to private over-the-counter options markets invisible to outsiders (U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 2009). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Madoff insisted on unusual confidentiality requirements. Investors were instructed not to discuss their involvement with his fund (U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 2009). This secrecy prevented the collection of information necessary to identify inconsistencies. The information gap was further widened by the design of Madoff’s statements and reports, which included just enough detail to appear legitimate while masking the absence of actual trading. Statements listed specific securities and options trades with prices that corresponded to actual market movements, creating the illusion of transparency (U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 2009). These carefully crafted documents satisfied most investors’ desire for information without providing verifiable data that might have exposed the fraud.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Madoff\u2019s ultimate safeguard was simply his name. His chairmanship of NASDAQ, his service on SEC advisory committees, and his family’s prominent positions in industry self-regulatory organizations created the impression that he had been thoroughly vetted by the financial establishment (U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 2009). Madoff easily leveraged his name and reputation to discourage questioning. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Madoff scandal remains one of the most egregious examples of regulatory failure in modern financial history\u2013illustrating how unchecked markets can foster deception, even under formal oversight. Madoff operated in plain sight, and still, the gap between procedural compliance and legitimate verification allowed his scheme to persist for decades. This failure, along with the broader regulatory philosophy of the time\u2013emphasizing deregulation and market-based discipline\u2013created conditions ripe for systemic fraud.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The collapse of Madoff\u2019s scheme exposed fundamental weaknesses in this approach. From the SEC\u2019s dismissal of explicit warnings to feeder funds abandonment of due diligence, and investors\u2019 reluctance to question unusual returns; the U.S financial market proved incapable of self-correction in the face of information asymmetry and conflicts of interest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As the Trump administration moves to weaken SEC regulations, the Madoff case underscores the critical role of robust oversight mechanisms\u2013the absence of which creates precisely the conditions where fraud can hide in plain sight, devastating investors and undermining the integrity of the financial system.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

References <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Brooklyn Law Journal. (2021). First, succumbing to the deregulatory impulses of the Trump administration, the SEC failed to recognize the emerging Ponzi scheme that was the Madoff operation. Brooklyn Journal of Corporate, Financial & Commercial Law. https:\/\/brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu\/cgi\/viewcontent.cgi?article=1142&context=bjcfcl#:~:text=First%2C%20succumbing%20to%20the%20deregulatory,costing%20investors%20billions%20of%20dollars<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ehrmann, T. (2011b, July 11). Bernard Madoff, painted portrait _DDC5185. Flickr; Bernard Madoff, painted portrait _DDC5185 | Secrets revealed\u2026 | Flickr. https:\/\/www.flickr.com\/photos\/home_of_chaos\/3612816175\/in\/photostream\/<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Eren, C. P. (2017). Bernie Madoff and the crisis: The public trial of capitalism (1st ed.). Stanford University Press.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (n.d.). Bernie Madoff. FBI. https:\/\/www.fbi.gov\/history\/famous-cases\/bernie-madoff<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Henriques, D. B. (2011). The wizard of lies: Bernie Madoff and the death of trust (1st ed.). Times Books\/Henry Holt.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kestenbaum, D. (2010, March 2). Madoff whistleblower: SEC failed to do the math. NPR. https:\/\/www.npr.org\/2010\/03\/02\/124208012\/madoff-whistleblower-sec-failed-to-do-the-math<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kindelberger, C. P., Aliber, R. Z., & McCauley, R. N. (2023). Bernie Madoff: Frauds, swindles, and the credit cycle (pp. 127\u2013172). Springer International Publishing. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/978-3-031-16008-0_6<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Stillman, S. (2009, February 4). Madoff whistleblower tells Congress he feared for his life. Mother Jones. https:\/\/www.motherjones.com\/politics\/2009\/02\/madoff-whistleblower-tells-congress-he-feared-his-life\/<\/p>\n\n\n\n

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. (2009). Executive summary: Investigation of failure of the SEC to uncover Bernard Madoff’s Ponzi scheme (Report No. OIG-509). https:\/\/www.sec.gov\/files\/oig-509-exec-summary.pdf<\/p>\n\n\n\n

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. (2009). Investigation of failure of the SEC to uncover Bernard Madoff’s Ponzi scheme (Report No. OIG-509). https:\/\/www.sec.gov\/news\/studies\/2009\/oig-509.pdf<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Financial market observers are sounding the alarm as the Trump administration pushes to weaken the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regulations and loosen restrictions on financial markets.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4904,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_uag_custom_page_level_css":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[4,100],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3971","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-finance-business","category-spotlight","entry"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","uagb_featured_image_src":{"full":false,"thumbnail":false,"medium":false,"medium_large":false,"large":false,"1536x1536":false,"2048x2048":false,"post-thumbnail":false},"uagb_author_info":{"display_name":"tpingle","author_link":"https:\/\/sites.lsa.umich.edu\/mje\/author\/tpingle\/"},"uagb_comment_info":0,"uagb_excerpt":"Financial market observers are sounding the alarm as the Trump administration pushes to weaken the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regulations and loosen restrictions on financial markets.","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.lsa.umich.edu\/mje\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3971","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.lsa.umich.edu\/mje\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.lsa.umich.edu\/mje\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.lsa.umich.edu\/mje\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4904"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.lsa.umich.edu\/mje\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3971"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/sites.lsa.umich.edu\/mje\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3971\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4266,"href":"https:\/\/sites.lsa.umich.edu\/mje\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3971\/revisions\/4266"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.lsa.umich.edu\/mje\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3971"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.lsa.umich.edu\/mje\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3971"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.lsa.umich.edu\/mje\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3971"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}