Quote:
Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Cox heading the SEC -- good or bad?
Spanky, lemme guess your feelings (why do we need an SEC at all? The free market will ensure full disclosure and prevent securities fraud!) ;-)
My own feelings -- the SEC is in near-stalemate lately, which is not a good thing. Cox is too radical a choice, however. The PSLRA, while in many ways necessary and a good thing, really pushed a trend away from accountability (and liability) that contributed to the rash of scandals that we saw in the ensuing years. Cox will vastly accelerate that trend -- it's like a car that's taken a turn to the correct course, but overshot it a little.... and he's going to lock the steering wheel and slam on the gas.
OTOH, I haven't practiced in the securities area for awhile (too goddamn boring, sitting in roomsful of lawyers who couldn't distinguish between a relevant fact and an important fact to save their lives). I'd be interested to hear from the people more currently involved in the area.
|
Time will tell with Cox. The convential wisdom is that Donaldson swung the pendulum to far after the scandals and a loosening of regulation would be a good thing for companies.
I'm no litigator, but I do currently practice in the area. I think the balance that needs to be struck is difficult. On the one hand, I'm am fully behind full and accurate disclosure, but on the other hand, I think the regulations need to differentiate between large cap and small cap companies, mainly because the costs of a small cap complying with the same regs as, say IBM, often times become prohibitive and are harmfull to investors.
