The settlement with the S.E.C. did not outline what penalties or fines would be paid by Putnam. Restitution will be determined later. As is customary, Putnam neither admitted nor denied the accusations.
So what did the commission extract from Putnam in the quickie deal? An independent board of directors, something the company previously claimed to have; compliance controls, which the company was already supposed to have; and employee trading restrictions, which Putnam should have had all along.
They sure are tough negotiators down there at the S.E.C. Fund companies that have turned up abusive trading practices in their own shops will surely cheer this settlement and line up to receive their own version.
Which, of course, helps to deal with the problem, by giving the fund companies something that they can point to in assuring their
marks investors that the problem has been dealt with.
So what do you think the problem was?