Connect with us

Accounting

Wall Street seizes opportunity to gut SEC trading surveillance

Published

on

After 14 years of debate, the Securities and Exchange Commission is in the final stages of bringing a powerful new surveillance tool fully online. But Wall Street is seizing on the ideal political environment for a last-ditch attempt to kill it.

The Consolidated Audit Trail is a database, one of the largest ever created, that is set to revolutionize how the agency monitors trading activity and spots potential misconduct. By its May 31 industry compliance deadline, it will collect almost all U.S. trading data, as many as 500 billion records a day, and give the SEC a live window into activity across markets. 

Citadel Securities is leading a suit seeking to have the CAT declared illegal, and Wall Street is rallying behind it. Though financial firms have long expressed skepticism about the project, they are now allying with Republicans in Congress to paint it as a dystopian nightmare that would allow the federal government to spy on the investment decisions of every American. The fight also comes as the U.S. Supreme Court has hinted that it’s inclined to rein in the SEC and other federal agencies.

‘Orwellian surveillance’
Ken Griffin’s market-making firm declined to comment for this article but pointed to its Feb. 8 court brief, in which it accused the SEC of trying to “keep the American people in the dark about the adverse impacts of its unprecedented effort to subject the national securities markets to an Orwellian surveillance regime.”

In a Feb. 15 filing, Citadel Securities got the support of the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, the Managed Funds Association, the Alternative Investment Management Association and other trade groups representing just about every major US bank, brokerage, hedge fund, private equity and asset management firm — everyone from Goldman Sachs Group Inc. to Robinhood Markets Inc. Rival market maker Virtu Financial Inc. signed on separately in a show of unity against a common threat.

The SEC called the challenge “meritless” in an April 15 court filing and said Citadel Securities had never objected to the CAT before it filed its challenge last fall.

The regulator defended the CAT as a natural progression of its oversight powers and said the previously “cumbersome, time-consuming and frequently unsuccessful” process of tracking orders had become obsolete in today’s faster and more automated markets. The agency also said there were limits on the CAT’s access to and use of personal data and decried the “caricature” of the database being used “to snoop on Americans’ personal financial decisions.”

Wall Street has a specific beef with how the SEC wants to pay for the CAT — by imposing billions of dollars in fees on broker-dealers. The database is actually owned by CAT LLC, which is composed of stock exchanges and the industry-backed Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. The current SEC plan is to allocate two-thirds of the costs of developing and operating CAT to broker-dealers as opposed to the exchanges and Finra.

But David Rosenfeld, a former SEC enforcement official now teaching law at Northern Illinois University, said there’s also clearly concern on Wall Street about enhancing the agency’s ability to examine trading activity. 

“It gives the SEC not exactly real-time but close to real-time insight into what’s going on as far as trading is concerned,” said Rosenfeld. “That can give them a huge advantage in terms of ferreting out certain types of misconduct. There’s lot of things you can figure out just by looking at the data.”

One in a trillion
First proposed in the wake of the 2010 “flash crash,” the CAT’s data collection has proceeded in stages, starting with equity trades and non-complex options trades in 2020 and moving to complex options trades the following year. The May deadline is for market participants to submit client information to the CAT.

In December 2022, the SEC gave its first indication of how it would use CAT data for enforcement, quietly crediting the database with uncovering one of the biggest front-running schemes ever. Nuveen trader Lawrence Billimek was charged with tipping off Oregon retiree Alan Williams about stocks the asset-management giant was planning to buy, netting them $47 million in illegal profits.

Legal experts say the pair’s insider trading probably wouldn’t have been caught without the CAT.

Major insider-trading cases have often focused on single-market events like merger announcements. In the Nuveen case, the SEC used the CAT to track some 1,697 intraday equity trades made by Williams, finding he had a 97% “win rate” over a five-year period. The chances of that occurring randomly were less than one in a trillion, the SEC said. 

Both men pleaded guilty to criminal charges last year, and Billimek is scheduled to be sentenced on May 20. He faces up to 20 years in prison.

“Before the CAT, it was literally like the SEC was in the horse-and-buggy era of the 19th century trying to catch the fastest race car drivers of the 21st century,” said Dennis Kelleher, co-founder of financial reform advocacy group Better Markets. “I mean, it just wasn’t a fair fight. This changes all of that.”

Supreme Court v. agencies
At an October conference in Chicago, SEC enforcement official Rachael Clarke said the agency has built a whole analytic infrastructure to crunch CAT data. She hinted more enforcement cases were in the works.

“Stay tuned. More CAT in the future,” she said.

But that promise of stepped-up enforcement could be in jeopardy.

In November, the conservative Supreme Court majority indicated that it might bar the SEC from using in-house judges to decide enforcement cases, forcing it to litigate all actions in federal court. The same justices in January suggested they might also overturn the court’s landmark 1984 decision in Chevron v. NRDC, which held that federal judges must defer to the expertise of government agencies like the SEC.

Citadel Securities filed its October suit in the federal appeals court in Atlanta, which is regarded as more conservative than its counterpart in Washington. The firm argues in its suit that a project as big and expensive as the CAT, with an estimated price tag of $1 billion to develop and then $200 million a year to maintain, can’t be pushed on the industry by the SEC without explicit congressional approval. 

Congressional brief
David Slovick, a former SEC lawyer now at Barnes & Thornburg, said rulings on agency overreach by the Supreme Court could influence the judges in the CAT case.

“If there’s an avenue for a win here,” he said, “I think it’s the Supreme Court saying, ‘You’re acting outside of the scope of your regulatory authority and you need to go back to the congressional well and get legislative authority to do what you’re trying to do.'”

Citadel Securities’ arguments have already found a receptive audience on Capitol Hill. In February, Congressional Republicans led by Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas and including Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina, filed a brief in support of the CAT challenge. They said “creating such an elaborate and intrusive structure involved significant policy judgments on questions of individual liberty, personal privacy, national security, and law enforcement” should be a matter for Congress.

‘Core values’
Republicans have expressed a particular fear that CAT data could be used to monitor investors’ political and religious beliefs. 

“Economic transactions offer a window into a person’s deepest thoughts and core values,” SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, wrote in a dissenting May 2020 letter urging the agency to reconsider the project. 

“That some investors undoubtedly are engaged in misconduct in our financial markets cannot justify amassing this information,” she added. A conservative think tank last month filed a suit in Texas federal court challenging the CAT as an unconstitutional invasion of privacy.

But Slovick says the concerns about investor privacy are overblown, since the data was already being collected by the exchanges and Finra. In his view, the finance industry is harnessing the political argument to cloak its true reason for opposing the CAT.

“It makes the SEC’s lift a lot lighter,” said Slovick. “Their cases against Wall Street are going to be more effective and, of course, Wall Street doesn’t like that.”

Continue Reading

Accounting

Global ESG Reporting Standards and Double Materiality Compliance

Published

on

Corporate accounting departments face expanding reporting expectations as international sustainability disclosure standards achieve regulatory enforcement across major global jurisdictions. Chief Accounting Officers (CAOs) and corporate controllers are establishing rigorous internal accounting controls to treat Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) metrics with the same data precision, auditability, and governance as traditional financial statements.

Regulatory Harmonization Under Global Sustainability Frameworks
The implementation of standardized sustainability reporting frameworks—notably rules established by international sustainability accounting boards—has created unified expectations for public and large private enterprises. Corporations must report standardized metrics covering greenhouse gas emissions (Scope 1, 2, and material Scope 3), energy utilization, workforce demographics, and supply chain governance.

In Europe and other participating international jurisdictions, double materiality principles are mandatory. Under double materiality, organizations must report both how external sustainability risks impact corporate financial performance, and how internal corporate operations affect surrounding environmental and social structures.

Integrating Sustainability Metrics into Core ERP Systems
To provide auditable non-financial data, enterprise organizations are integrating specialized carbon accounting and ESG management platforms directly into core ERP systems. Automated data collectors capture energy utility invoices, logistics fuel consumption metrics, and vendor compliance records in real time.

Establishing automated, traceable data pipelines ensures that non-financial reporting is supported by clear audit trails. This structured approach allows external financial auditors to provide reasonable assurance on sustainability disclosures during annual corporate reporting cycles.

Financial Impacts and Capital Market Disclosure
Accurate ESG reporting directly influences corporate cost of capital and institutional credit ratings. Commercial lenders and institutional asset managers systematically incorporate sustainability metrics into risk pricing models. Companies that demonstrate transparent, verifiable progress in operational energy efficiency and climate risk mitigation benefit from expanded access to green bond markets and lower debt pricing.

Action Steps for Accounting Leadership
1. Implement Double Materiality Frameworks: Conduct comprehensive assessments to identify material financial and operational sustainability metrics.
2. Build Auditable Non-Financial Data Pipelines: Automate ESG data collection within core accounting software to ensure data integrity.
3. Align Sustainability with Annual Financial Filings: Prepare non-financial disclosures concurrently with financial statements to satisfy regulatory audit expectations.

Continue Reading

Accounting

Modernizing Internal Controls: Machine Learning and Continuous Monitoring in Auditing

Published

on

Internal audit departments and corporate risk managers are modernizing internal control frameworks by shifting from periodic sampling techniques to continuous monitoring and machine learning analytics. As operational data volumes increase across enterprise organizations, automated control testing ensures financial integrity, prevents corporate fraud, and streamlines annual audit engagements.

The Limitation of Periodic Audit Sampling
Historically, internal and external auditors evaluated internal controls by reviewing random samples of financial transactions—often analyzing less than five percent of total ledger entries. In complex enterprise environments, periodic sampling methods carry inherent risks of overlooking localized financial misstatements, unauthorized disbursements, or operational control breakdowns.

In 2026, progressive internal audit functions are utilizing automated continuous monitoring platforms that evaluate one hundred percent of financial transactions in real time. Continuous control auditing systems continuously monitor general ledger entries, procurement approvals, and expense reimbursements across all operating subsidiaries.

AI-Powered Fraud Detection and Anomaly Identification
Machine learning models trained on historical corporate financial data excel at identifying subtle transactional anomalies that indicate potential fraud or operational error. Automated systems instantly flag duplicate invoice payments, unapproved vendor creation, unusual journal entry timing, and unauthorized override of authority thresholds.

When an anomaly is detected, the automated auditing platform generates an instant risk alert, allowing internal audit teams to investigate root causes immediately. Early detection prevents minor operational errors from escalating into material weaknesses in financial reporting.

Streamlining External Audit Preparation
Continuous internal control monitoring delivers significant benefits during annual external financial audits. External audit firms can review continuous audit logs and automated control testing documentation, reducing the time required for manual field testing.

This integrated approach lowers overall audit compliance fees, reduces administrative burdens on corporate accounting staff, and provides senior management and audit committees with real-time visibility into the organization’s overall risk profile.

Core Implementation Guidelines
1. Transition to 100% Data Testing: Replace legacy sampling methods with automated continuous audit monitoring systems.
2. Deploy Anomaly Detection Algorithms: Implement machine learning models to identify unauthorized transactions and operational control overrides.
3. Align Internal and External Audit Workflows: Coordinate continuous control testing protocols with external auditors to optimize annual compliance cycles.

Continue Reading

Accounting

Automated Tax Compliance and Global Regulatory Harmonization in 2026

Published

on

Corporate tax accounting departments are navigating an era of unprecedented regulatory complexity as global tax harmonization frameworks take full effect alongside real-time digital tax reporting mandates. Tax directors and accounting teams are adopting cloud-based tax compliance automation tools to manage multi-jurisdictional tax liabilities and satisfy stringent reporting rules across international jurisdictions.

Implementation of Global Minimum Tax Provisions
The implementation of international tax reform agreements—notably the Pillar Two global minimum tax framework—has reshaped multinational corporate tax planning. Multinational enterprises with consolidated revenues exceeding established thresholds must ensure an effective tax rate of at least 15% across every jurisdiction in which they operate.

Accounting teams are implementing specialized tax calculation modules integrated directly into enterprise resource planning (ERP) platforms. These automated tools calculate effective tax rates per country, identify top-up tax liabilities, and generate standardized compliance documentation required by national tax authorities.

Real-Time Digital Invoicing and E-Reporting Mandates
Tax authorities across Europe, Latin America, and Asia-Pacific have enacted mandatory electronic invoicing (e-invoicing) and continuous transaction controls (CTC). Under these systems, corporate transaction data must be submitted electronically to government portals in real time at the point of sale or invoice issuance.

This shift toward continuous digital tax reporting eliminates traditional annual tax audits in favor of ongoing automated compliance monitoring. Accounting departments are upgrading invoicing software to ensure seamless XML data formatting, digital signature authentication, and real-time validation against tax authority databases.

Automation and Data Analytics in Corporate Tax Strategy
To keep pace with dynamic tax legislation, tax departments are transitioning from reactive compliance teams to proactive strategic advisors. Machine learning algorithms analyze corporate transactional data to identify tax credits, research and development (R&D) incentives, and cross-border transfer pricing adjustments.

By automating routine tax return filings and calculations, corporate tax directors can focus on long-term capital structuring, evaluating the tax implications of corporate mergers, and optimizing international supply chain networks.

Strategic Priorities for Tax Executives
1. ERP System Upgrades: Ensure enterprise software is capable of generating real-time, granular tax data required for global minimum tax compliance.
2. E-Invoicing Integration: Implement scalable e-invoicing platforms to satisfy regional continuous transaction control regulations.
3. Strategic Tax Analytics: Utilize predictive tax modeling tools to evaluate structural changes in corporate operations and cross-border trade.

Continue Reading

Trending