If you've worked as a broker you know the game. The house sets quotas. You must meet the quotas or its good-bye.

As a broker, your first and foremost obligation is to the client. You can make recommendations, but in the last analysis, the decision to buy or sell a security rests with the client. Brokers, however, are often under the gun by management to tout certain securities to their clients that may not be in their best interests.

Can you imagine the anxiety in executive offices all across the country? Why is that you ask? The Obama Administration wants to give the SEC new powers on executive pay by forcing firms to let shareholders vote on executive pay and make executives who set pay schedules more independent.

Today's proposal, which is subject to Congressional approval, would cover all companies. The administration will also name a "special master" to monitor compensation plans for companies receiving government assistance.

Newly-installed SEC Chairman told a public round-table meeting that she has "made it a priority to evaluate the issue of short-selling regulation, and ensure that any future policies in this area are the result of a deliberate and thoughtful process."

The SEC has floated a number of potential proposals for dealing with the short-selling "problem," including making it illegal to short sell stocks that are down 10% or more. One popular "solution" is to bring back the recently revoked uptick rule that required short sellers to execute trades only on an uptick -- if the last trade was at $20.00, you could only sell short at $20.01 or higher.

The New York Times reports that "In the first quarter of 2009, the S.E.C. reached 182 new financial settlements, according to NERA Economic Consulting. That compares with 157 in the year-ago period and 123 in the previous quarter."

Given all the well-deserved criticism that was directed at the SEC during Chris Cox's reign, a tenure characterized by a laissez-faire attitude toward regulation that ended with disastrous results, it's not surprising that Mary L. Schapiro is picking up the pace.

The New York Times reports that new SEC head Mary Schapiro is already shaking things up, less than a month into her tenure.

In one move, she reversed a rule implemented by her predecessor that required enforcement lawyers to obtain the consent of commissioners before taking action on major cases. Also admirable is her decision to clear the way for greater investor input in corporate governance, a problem that many experts believe was a major factor in the collapse of the economy. According to the Times, "She says she will work quickly to adopt rules to minimize the conflicts of interest at credit-rating agencies that many experts say contributed to the current crisis. She is exploring whether to impose restrictions on short-selling, a type of trade in which an investor profits on stock declines. One idea she is considering is the revival of the uptick rule, a regulation that prohibited short-selling while a stock is declining."

Because of a paper-pushing snafu, President Obama's vile pick to head the SEC wasn't officially seated until four days after outgoing Clown Prince of Finance Chris Cox had resigned.

According (subscription required) to The Wall Street Journal, "After lawmakers unanimously approved her appointment on Jan. 22, they realized that the paperwork had Ms. Schapiro's five-year term starting from June, rather than straight away. This meant that Ms. Schapiro wasn't technically in charge of the regulatory agency until the paperwork was corrected and the Senate confirmed her, again, on Monday evening."

It's a sad day for the integrity of the financial markets.

The United States Senate confirmed Obama's choice of Mary Schapiro to head the Securities and Exchange Commission -- unanimously.

It's no surprise that she was confirmed. But there were certainly enough red flags that someone should have been able to muster a no vote. She has a dismal track record as the head of FINRA and as a self-regulatory body insider, she represents the polar opposite of "change we can believe in." She's actually "more of the same" personified. As Gary Weiss reported on his blog, she also has a history of being a lapdog for some of Wall Street's shadiest elements. As Weiss wrote, "The chances of Schapiro shaking things up in the securities industry -- instituting real, meaningful, desperately desired change -- are about the same as the chances you can make a black bear curtsy and serve tea. This is a terribly disappointing selection."

This is not a pick that most people really care about and the media didn't raise hell over it. 90% of voters still probably have no idea who she is, or what FINRA is. But the fact that the Senate rubber stamped such a dubious pick so quickly and without dissent could be a sign of much worse things to come.

Convicted felon Sam Antar, who was the CFO of the Crazy Eddie fraud and now speaks out against white collar crime told me that "If I was still the criminal CFO of Crazy Eddie, Mary Schapiro is not someone I would be afraid of."

President-elect Barack Obama's pick to head the SEC has been roundly criticized by people who care about these things, but The Wall Street Journal (subscription required) is the first to launch a scathing attack on her career as a lousy regulator.

Since Schapiro has been the head of FINRA, enforcement fines have plunged 73%. Schapiro advocated the merger of regulatory bodies that led to the creation of FINRA, arguing that it would be effective in "reducing regulatory costs and reducing burdens" on financial companies.

Well maybe it was but if so, it came at the expense of derailing the entire economy and causing ordinary investors untold billions in losses. FINRA has also been criticized for failing to take any substantive action against Bernard Madoff.

The Wall Street Journal piece provides a terrifying look at the person Obama has selected to run the SEC at what is arguably its most important moment in history. He ran on a platform of change and new ideas but when it comes to regulating the financial markets, he has chosen an insider who is as much a part of the problem as anyone.

It's not too late to pick someone better, Mr. Obama!

President-elect Barack Obama's choice to head the SEC is already generating controversy. Mary L. Schapiro is being sued for making misleading statements to hasten the consummation of a merger of regulatory organizations: She took home a 57% raise as part of the merger. The merger between the regulatory arms of the NYSE and the NASD led to the creation of FINRA, where Ms. Schapiro served as CEO.

You can read more about the lawsuit in The New York TImes, and it seems possible that "No Drama Obama" will set her aside and look for someone who lacks any whiff of scandal.

But the truth is that even before this latest lawsuit, there were tons of reasons that Schapiro was an appalingly bad pick. Gary Weiss called her pick "an appalling endorsement of the status quo. That does not bode well for future SEC appointments."

Her confirmation hearings are scheduled for this week. She seems likely to sail in with little trouble, but that might not be good news for investors.

Regulators did not just drop the ball in the Bernard Madoff scandal. They never held it in the first place.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the SEC discovered in 2006 that Madoff had misled the agency about how he managed customers' money. Moreover, investor Henry Markopolos spent the past decade trying to convince the agency that Madoff's returns were too good to be true. Markopolos and his friends tried to replicate his returns using complex mathematical models and could not.

Barron's reported that no one understood how Madoff made money and that the investors were pressured to never reveal that they had money with him. Ever hear of an asset manager who did not want rich people to brag about how well they did with them? But people did not need to try that hard to figure out that Madoff is a crook. All they needed was common sense.

Anyone who promises investors consistent double-digit returns is either a crook or a fool. The stock market does not work that way. It never has. The one aspect of this scandal that baffles me is how Madoff was able to convince sophisticated people at banks, charities and some of the nation's wealthiest families that the reality of the market did not apply to them.

Isn't it finally time to put someone in charge of the SEC who really cares about investors?

There are many well qualified candidates. Here are a few suggestions:

William Galvin: The highly respected Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. He has taken on the industry and recovered millions of dollars of damages for aggrieved investors.

Joe Borg: Executive Director of the Alabama Securities Commission. Mr. Borg has a stellar record of protecting the interests of investors in Alabama.

Andrew Cuomo: The Attorney General of New York. He knows the industry and has shown great tenacity in exposing the recent fraud involving Auction Rate Bonds and other misdeeds.

Mary Schapiro, who is President-elect Obama's choice, has spent her career protecting the securities industry from investors.