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: tejek who wrote (148236)	7/14/2002 9:23:37 PM
From: i-node	Respond to of 1572838

Once again, we disagree......people have lost tons of money because CEOs have lied. The fault here, unfortunately, lies with the CPAs. Shareholders/Boards hire CEOs. CEOs are hired to do a job, but can be fired if they don't do it well (or if they behave inappropriately). But the safeguard is to be the auditor. As a CPA, I state with certainty: If you tempt someone with enough money often enough, the integrity of many who are otherwise reputable will cave like a one-egg pudding. It was the job of the CPAs to be sure that didn't happen. Unfortunately, the CPAs have a built-in conflict of interest (NOT from the fact they perform consulting services!). Simply put, you cannot have an independent audit when selection of the auditor and payment for his services (AFTER the fact) are functions of the auditee. One of the fundamental GAAS (Generally Accepted Auditing Standards) is that independence must exist. Unfortunately, under the current self-regulated system, it doesn't, it can't, and it won't. There will ALWAYS be a conflict of interest. The current Senate bill only marginally improves the situation. The CEOs are primarily reponsible. But had the safeguards been inplace, this would never have been a problem. The Democrats, the Republicans, the Independents have absolutely nothing to do with these scandals. Anyone alleging otherwise is guilty of trying to twist a tragedy into a political benefit. I believe those doing so (here in Arkansas, Mark Pryor running against Tim Hutchinson) will suffer ultimately at the polls.

To: tejek who wrote (148236)	7/15/2002 11:27:17 AM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1572838

"2 - Many of them are not Republicans. Perhaps a majority are but not an overwhelming majority. " These two sentences negate each other. Not they don't. 40% is not a majority but would amount to "many". No offense......but what does it matter if they are moderately conservative or severely conservative? They don't do a lot to support conservative causes, in fact they oppose some of them. And that's ignoreing the CEOs who are actually liberal, and those who are apolitical. Once again, we disagree... I'm not just talking about market impact but impact in all areas of our lives, and often a lasting impact. (a new law or even a new regulation is more likely to have a long term national effect then anything a particular CEO does). Tim