|
Beginning this past
Monday, the subject of competitiveness was placed high on the docket as
business and governmental leaders meet to mull the fate of our financial
standing in the world. Discussion
of the topic was begun in earnest soon after the appointment of Henry
Paulson as Treasury Secretary in 2006.
Bringing
his very profitable experience at the helm of Goldman Sachs, Mr. Paulson
was left with the somewhat difficult task of unifying President Bush’s
pro-business agenda. Since
replacing John Snow, who had wandered off message, focusing his efforts
on deficit reduction and corporate governance, Mr. Paulson has been
actively pursuing a quite different approach.
His
belief that, "we must rise above a
rules-based mindset that asks, 'Is this legal?' and adopt a more
principles-based approach that asks, 'Is this right?'" is at the
core of this conference.
Gathering
former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, ex-Fed chairman Alan Greenspan,
and a host of business leaders including Jeffery Immelt, CEO of General
Electric, Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York, John Thain of the NYSE
and Ann Yerger, former executive of the Council of Institutional
Investors to discuss the direction of the US financial markets, Mr.
Paulson hopes to set in motion the perceived reforms that business
insists will level the global playing field. Wall Street investment
firms are well represented on the commission as well.
The
assemblage was lightly peppered with dissenting voices in Warren Buffet,
who believes that the capital markets are not only healthy but globally
attractive and Arthur Levitt Jr., President Clinton’s SEC chairman,
whose impassioned editorial in the Wall Street Journal recently
suggested that these business leaders should leave well enough alone.
Mr. Levitt pointed out that these business leaders had
compromised the Financial Accounting Standards Board and the government
Accounting Standards Board to such a degree as to make them a moot
agency. Greenspan defended Sarbanes-Oxley.
Billed
as a weeklong debate, the topics on the table have been greatly
discussed by both Mr. Paulson and recently by the US Chamber of
Commerce. At risk is the chance that should these business leaders fail
to reach a decision, the United States will falter under the weight of
its own regulations.
The
group would like to change the way Sarbanes-Oxley is applied.
To do this, the commission has recommended that the Act, often
cited as a knee-jerk reaction to the demise of Enron and WorldCom and an
unnecessary costly accounting rule, be rolled into the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934. This
would give the SEC the power to pick and choose what should come under
the regulatory requirements.
Business
has sought to eliminate this legislation since its inception.
But since its passage, the cost of accounting, which forces the
CEO to sign-off on financial statements, has been drastically
reduced.
Worried
that too few accounting giants remain – Arthur Anderson collapsed in
2002 collapsed as a result of their poor auditing practices – moving
(and weakening) SarbOx, many in the group suggested would allow greater
flexibility and increased openness to American stock exchanges.
Among those most vocal on this subject was John Thain.
Currently,
there are only four major accounting firms remaining.
Mr. Paulson has urged Congress to allow these firms to raise
capital, whether on the open market or through private equity.
This would allow the remaining firms to better weather any
litigation and possibly loosen the new conservative nature prevalent in
the industry.
Once
this is done, restructuring the SEC, also on the agenda would be a
matter of closing one division (the inspections department which
monitors the activity of brokerage firms), diluting its oversight into
one of informality with the securities industry.
The suggested changes have been touted as efficiency based,
eliminating overlap while at the same time.
Christopher
Cox, the head of the SEC has resisted these changes so far standing
behind the current high standards already in place.
His commission has begun the subtle shift away from investor
protection to a more business responsive stance.
Mr.
Cox, who has met extensively with his British counterparts and has made
it clear that adopting their more lax regulations, is not in this
country’s best interest is expected to join the meeting on
Wednesday.
The
commission does have one item on the agenda worth consideration.
They have recommended the portability of employee 401(k) plans to
make increased participation more likely.
Yet
this one step forward is accompanied by one step back. The mandatory
enrollment of employees at all companies (excluding the smallest)
through payroll deduction would increase market involvement but the main
beneficiaries would not be the investors but the financial firms that
service them.
And
lastly, the group will focus on corporate guidance. Signing off on your
company’s next quarter can come with its problems and the suggestion
to eliminate this guidance is widely cheered by CEOs nationwide.
These company chiefs understand that failure to meet analyst
expectations can result in their company’s share price dropping.
On the flip side, beating expectations is often greeted with
exuberance first and skepticism second.
By
removing this exercise, chief executives suggest that their companies
would be allowed to take additional risk over longer periods of time.
Acting as investor advocates, financial firms analyze this
quarterly guidance and offer recommendations to their clients.
Numerous
other institutions also keep a watchful eye on this type of report
hoping to cull some insight on not only the short-term performance of
the company but the overall health of the sector in which it
operates.
If
you were looking for some sort of investor protection from these
weeklong discussions, you would do well to search elsewhere. With
corporate profits at an historic high of 8% of GDP, the idea of
implementing further changes can seem opprobrious.
Unfortunately,
only a few of the suggested changes require Congressional approval.
The remainder requires the likes of Mr. Buffet or Mr. Levitt and
hopefully Mr. Cox to stand tall against this wave of business-friendly
regulation. Our country
still provides the safest environment in which to conduct business and
the most profitable markets in which to list.
When like minds met, the consensus is a foregone conclusion.

© 2007 Paul Petillo
Editorial Archive
CONTACT
INFORMATION
Paul Petillo
Blue Collar Dollar.com
Portland, OR USA
(501) 313-5252
Email
| Website
|