As I read the SEC's 102-page rule proposal, I was struck by the SEC's repeated use of "could". According to my count, the word appears 90 times in the proposing release.
"Could" is the past participle of "can". When used as a substitute for "can", "could" implies a greater degree of uncertainty. When we say that something "could happen" we mean that it might or might not happen. Essentially, it means that something is possible, not that it necessarily will occur. Thus, the proposing release's constant use of the word conveys a notable incertitude on the part of the SEC.
I wonder if one could use that as a challenge to the eventual rule. After all, the SEC's seen a lot of high profile rules go down in flames due to lousy cost-benefit analyses.
