SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Technology Stocks : WCOM -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Tim Bagwell who wrote (10944)6/27/2002 12:03:00 PM
From: BWAC  Respond to of 11568
 
Don't have to vote for the company nominated BOD do ya? Don't have to own mutual fund which blindly vote them in?



To: Tim Bagwell who wrote (10944)6/27/2002 12:03:36 PM
From: tejek  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 11568
 
It's the board of directors of these large companies that are to blame. The BOD is itself made of other clown CEO's and it's one large "old boys" network. They look out for each other.

I think they are responsible for some of the blame but it just seems to me if a CFO wants to play with the books and the auditors look the other way, and this is all well hidden, how is the BOD to know. The BOD would have to go through all the supporting documentation every time the books are audited to be sure their is nothing illegal happening. And that's assuming that members of the BOD have an accounting background. Is that what is expected of a BOD?
I am not sure it is.

I know this may sound funny but it might be better to give a CFO a polygraph every month, or at least every time an audit is completed in order to insure his/her honesty. Otherwise, the controlling parties it seems have limited capability of stopping something once the CFO and other senior managers are in place. I think its easier to change what's considered acceptable business practices by strengthening and/or enforcing the laws than by depending on the BOD to insure the CFO et al are staying honest.

ted