[Osx-nutters] sarbanes-oxley

[Patrick Coskren]

On Aug 4, 2006, at 3:20 PM, Guy Hammond wrote:

> http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/?p=6041
>
> Heavy-handed legislation in having opposite effect shocker!

Sarbanes-Oxley was put in place to prevent (or at least impede) Enron- 
level corporate corruption.  Nothing in this article suggests it  
isn't doing just that.

(If you're just objecting to the minor issue of tweaking the cutoff  
where smaller companies aren't subject to the full requirements, then  
sure, that makes sense, but doesn't seem like a big deal.)

I'd suppose that the companies more likely to voluntarily delist are  
those with some accounting that would be, let's say, troublesome to  
disclose.  In which case, I don't see any problem at all that they've  
delisted.  The article seems to imply this makes corruption easier  
because the companies are reporting less financial information, but  
by delisting, those companies have basically broadcast that they're  
higher-risk (hence the average 10% discount), so I don't see a  
problem.  For the people who still want to invest, caveat emptor.

-Patrick