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.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (142292)	2/3/2002 5:20:49 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1578515

Anderson Hires Ex-Fed Head Volcker Feb 3 2:43pm ET NEW YORK (Reuters) - Embattled auditor Andersen, criticized for its poor handling of fallen Enron Corp.'s books, said Sunday it hired former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker to help restore its credibility, and said it will no longer offer some consulting services to audit clients. Accounting firms that offer consulting services to corporations they audit have come under heavy criticism for potential conflicts of interest. Andersen said Volcker agreed to chair an independent oversight board to work with Andersen "in making fundamental changes to its audit practices." Volcker said: "Some months ago, in addressing the International Conference of Financial Executives, I stated that my concern was that 'the profession of auditing and accounting is in crisis.' That crisis is now evident to everyone." Andersen said it will no longer offer consulting services, such as designing computerized financial systems, to publicly traded U.S. audit clients, or provide internal audit services to publicly traded U.S. clients they externally audit. Andersen has come under fire for its auditing role with Enron, as questions were raised about the energy trader's accounting for certain partnerships that were hidden off its balance sheets. The moves came after recent calls for the New York Stock Exchange to tighten its accounting rules for listed companies and prevent auditors from working as consultants for the same firm. Top accounting firms PricewaterhouseCoopers and KPMG said last week they would support such proposals for the accounting profession, which had fought bitterly against limits on consulting services. The cigar-smoking, 6-foot-8-inch Volcker, who was chairman of the Federal Reserve from 1979 to 1987, is currently chairman of the trustees of the International Accounting Standards Committee Foundation. "We are pleased that Paul Volcker has agreed to help us in this effort," said Joseph Berardino, managing partner and chief executive officer of Andersen Worldwide. "Mr. Volcker is one of the most independent and innovative thinkers in American finance," he added. "Andersen, our clients, and America's investors will jointly benefit from his active participation and leadership." The Independent Oversight Board will have a professional staff and free access to all information relevant to a full review of the policies and procedures of the firm, Berardino said. The IOB will have full authority to mandate changes in any practices it may find necessary and desirable. Volcker's hiring parallels another high-profile effort to revive a scandal-scarred company. In 1991, Salomon Brothers, nearly crippled by revelations it submitted rigged bids at a U.S. Treasury auction, turned to legendary investor Warren Buffett, to rebuild the investment bank. Buffett was an investor in Salomon when he took over as interim chairman in 1991. Volcker said he hoped to achieve needed reform of a accounting profession "that, by its nature, must be the trustee of truth and transparency in our capital markets." Andersen's lead partner handling Enron's audit, David Duncan, was fired for his alleged role in destroying documents related to the energy giant's bookkeeping. Duncan has said he was following instructions. Andersen, the No. 5 accounting firm, already has former U.S. Senator John Danforth conducting a comprehensive review of the company's records management policy to recommend improvements. siliconinvestor.com

To: TimF who wrote (142292)	2/3/2002 10:01:23 PM
From: Bill Jackson	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1578515

Tim, The trouble with small moves of .3% in any measure is the size of the base used in measurement. There is noy way to see if that is just noise. What is needed is the a trend line to see if that figure hops up and down by .5% every year or so as well as trend lines to see if it goes up or down. There is no doubt that the smaller number of guns in the UK mean that the non gang criminal has a hard time getting one. That means impulse crimes will involve a gun on fewer occasions. A planned crime where there is enough lead time to root through the underworld for a gun would would have a higher incidence of gun use. For example, there have been a number of high tech crimes where memory, CPUs, hard drives etc have been stolen by oriental gangs with guns. A few of these could account for the uptick of .3%. However as memoery fell and the dotcom crash bit, then these robberies decreased. Another factor in this was more wire wickets to separate people from the good. There were several incidents where gang people threatened other customers to get the parts they wanted. There were also incidents where the people inside refused entry, even when the robbers threatened the other clients. Luckily the robbers left before killing anyone, so we will never know what may have gone down. As usual nothing operates in isolation. As there get to be more guns and crimes with them, then better cages and other defences(silent alarms) come along and redress the balance. One thing I am sure of, the impulse gun crime at home is very rare in the UK for the simple matter that there are so few guns in private hands. The hot impulse gun crime usually goes away when the only alternative is to use a knife. A lot harder to approach a person with a knife and kill them, esp if they can flee/fight/etc. A gun kills from distance. If you armed the police you would get them killing their wives on impulse as well as thefts from police of their guns. Bill

To: TimF who wrote (142292)	2/4/2002 1:49:51 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578515

However the point is not that the banning of guns has lead to an increase of gun crimes, but rather that because criminals know that people wont have a gun to defend themselves that crime and violent crime overall has increased. No, the only important point is that in 1998, 14.24 people per 100,000 were killed by guns in the US while in England the comparative number was .41 per 100,000. In other words, for every 14 people killed in the US by a gun less than 1/2 person was killed by a gun in England. All the rest is just a lot of words. ted