Posted on 09/25/2008 9:46:12 AM PDT by 11th Commandment
Sorry for the vanity, but Bill is showing his populist message once again fails on economics. The bail out run by the same "pinheads" that brought us the crises in the first place is dumb.
It reminds me of Sarbane Oxley (SOX) that ended up being enforced by the same pinhead accountants that brough us Enron. That worked well as SOX prevented FANNIE, FREDDIE, Lehman, Merrill, AIG......
Newt is the only guy making sense right now.
BOR is just worried about his 3,000 shares of Merrill
And you and Newt are both showing your ignorance of Sarbanes-Oxley.
Sarbanes requires a CEO to sign off on the financial statement of his company. That is not something you want to repeal.
Sarbanes requires substantial changes to internal processes in finance and information technology to greatly limit any possiblity of fraud. You don’t want to repeal that.
Sarbanes requires internal auditors and external auditors to help assure all of these processes are properly working. You don’t want to repeal that.
Sarbanes subsequently costs a fair amount of money to implement, and a smaller amount of money to sustain. It is annoying, just as ISO or any quality-control program is to its participants. You can’t really get rid of most of this.
Sarbanes does require companies to value their property under what has been considered the most prudent method, “mark-to-market,” meaning, if a company has an asset, it must price it on its daily balance sheet with its value as it would be today. This GREATLY prevents fraud, as no company can say we have $50 billion in assets when those investments may never realize that, even if the company wants to think it would be great if it were so. The problem with this, now, is that some companies have investments which have values that have effectively gone to zero, or can’t be measured by any valuation method at this time. This is an extreme difference from the norm, and only stupid companies are dealing with this fallout. Suspending this for certain classes of investments may be necessary to quickly alleviate our current morass, but in general, it is a terrible idea that invites massive fraud.
Sarbanes was never meant to address the issues which we see today. In fact, it is the shareholder lawsuits against Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, since 2004, which have used SARBANES VIOLATIONS as the basis for legal action against those firms.
Get real and get an education. You and Newt, both.
Well, he makes as much sense as Paul Krugman....
Newt may not live with SOX, but I do. While auditor's are running a micro-scope up my butt, wholesale fraud and incompetant executes still are running companies into the ground.
Sarbanes requires a CEO to sign off on the financial statement of his company. That is not something you want to repeal.
I never said I wanted to appeal SOX, I just said it was not working. This is a good case in point. The CEO of CAH was never held accountable for his sign-offs of the financials...
Sarbanes requires substantial changes to internal processes in finance and information technology to greatly limit any possiblity of fraud. You don’t want to repeal that.
Do this day, I could rip the lips off my company and be long gone. What prevents this is ethics.
Sarbanes requires internal auditors and external auditors to help assure all of these processes are properly working. You don’t want to repeal that.
Auditors now are so busy running there little test on this "i" dotted and this "t" being crossed, they can see big problem coming.... say like being over invested in sub prime mortgages (ex. Citibank)
Rush just said SOX caused this current meltdown.
Sarbanes works. Courts, not using that violation, is a different matter, entirely. Sarbanes works.
Sarbanes does not prevent companies from having investments that are high-risk, which can very quickly change in value. That was never part of it, at all.
Sarbanes is not the problem.
BoR is a pinhead! So there!!!
SOX is a pain in the backside (I’m an accountant) but it was designed to stop fraud, not incompetence. Sub-prime mortgages count as the latter to those that ok’d them (nb - not those that thought them up; they’re no doubt laughing all the way to the bank with their bonuses).
what’s wrong with bill, someone didn’t like his book?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.