Hi Arthur, At 13:25 08/04/02 -0400, you wrote: >Keith, > >You still haven't answered my question > >And who or what group would ensure that transparency? Seems that oversight >and regulation ensures transparency and playing by the rules.
I thought I had done! I wrote: (KH) <<<< Just as innumerable people (financial journalists, share analysts, consumer and shareholder bodies) are presently trying to understand General Electric's accounts in the US (in case the firm is another Enron -- unlikely, but possible), they would do the same in the case of any company with the tinest whiff of suspicion. They would be greatly helped by complete information, of course. >>>> In addition to those which already have a deep interest in the true state of affairs of businesses (particularly the large, and apparently successful ones), I can't specify in advance just what other new bodies would arise were there to be transparent information, but you could bet that there would be more than enough of them. Our Consumer Association would undoubtedly become involved because millions of people with private pensions are now very worried about the due diligence of the trustees and associate stockbrokers as to the true state of the companies invested in. Also, considering that the so-called Chinese Walls between analysts and brokers within investment banks and mutual funds have been shown to be quite false during the recent stock market boom, then genuine objective analysts would be much in demand by investors -- but with advice paid for, not given away free. (AC) >Your answer that the present oversight group missed 4 large scandals doesn't >speak to the scandals that have been averted because of their very >existence. To my knowledge, the FSA has not yet averted sniffed out big scandals within specific companies. It has warned house buyers against using endowment-type mortgages -- but then most people who read their newspapers knew that anyway. I think that the FSA will, in due course, do a lot of 'good', but it cannot possibly anticipate new scams because it can't call for possible crucial internal evidence unless it has already decided to prosecute. Even now, with all the new powers given to it, the FSA finds that getting information out of businesses is a difficult job. (AC) >Having a policing force in existence doesn't mean the elimination of crime. >It means that crime is kept within tolerable limits. No, but having different police forces with different areas of expertise and answering to different segments of the public would be much more likely to expose wrong-doing. (AC) >So I ask again: >Who or what group would ensure that transparency? Seems that oversight >and regulation ensures transparency and playing by the rules. >Keith, I hope you are not going to suggest self-regulation. No Sir! Keith __________________________________________________________ �Writers used to write because they had something to say; now they write in order to discover if they have something to say.� John D. Barrow _________________________________________________ Keith Hudson, Bath, England; e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________
