Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Stock Attack -- A Complete Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lee Lichterman III who wrote (24590)	6/27/2000 6:13:00 PM
From: Logain Ablar	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42787

Hi Lee: The SEC has been proposing this for a while. It is a difficult position for the industry. All firms, not just the big 5, although they are the ones mostly at issue with the SEC and publicly traded firms, perform services other than just audit. I see the SEC position where it raises conflicts of interest. As an auditor one needs to be independent (to the extent possible, since you never want to lose a large client) and keeping that image is very important. From the industry standpoint the other services, consulting being the bigest, has grown out of the audit relationship (in most instances). This occured due to the search for increased revenue. We'll we all need to put bread on the table but raising audit fees is difficult to do. Personally as an investor I want the independance. As an ex auditor I can see where the firms can police and keep the audit function separate. Unfortunately just like we have bad auditors now we'll have bad policing. Since I'm in the industry I think the SEC should focus on the MM's and how they flece the small investor versus picking on the big 5. Tim