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.

Technology Stocks : All About Sun Microsystems -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Charles Tutt who wrote (50672)	7/25/2002 2:28:15 AM
From: technologiste	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 64865

Why do we need it [CEOs certifying their company's earnings reports] if it doesn't do anything? Good question. Perhaps it would help to restore the investing public's confidence in the credibility of American corporations if those corporations' CEOs were to step forward and publicly reaffirm that part of their job as a Chief Executive Officer entails ensuring that the numbers that their company reports are accurate. Are CEOs suddenly responsible for their company's reports? No, CEOs always had this responsibility (whether they knew it or not). Of course, there may be a few CEOs who never realized that that they had any responsibility at all with regard to the accuracy of their company's earnings reports. It's equally likely that some CEOs are so detached from their company's own operations that they have no more reason to believe the accuracy of their own company's earnings than the reported earnings of any other company in America, including Enron or Worldcom. If a CEO were in that situation, a reluctance to certify earnings results would make a lot of sense. There are certainly some current (and potential) Sun shareholders who view McNealy's reluctance to sign as the mark of a true maverick: an "in your face" defiance of a too powerful government bent on making CEOs accountable to shareholders, rather than letting CEOs perform their one and only true job: making sales. On the other hand, there may be other Sun shareholders who are a bit disconcerted by the growing public relations fiasco that Sun's CEO has on his own created. For those shareholders it may seem difficult to see how this public and unnecessary controversy serves their interests, especially at a time when SUNW seems to set a new 52-week low on a daily basis. But there might be an easy resolution to this imbroglio. McNealy is apparently unwilling to attest to the accuracy of his company's results (and his stand on this issue is likely to set him apart from the 499 other Fortune 500 CEOs). So perhaps it is time (after almost 30 years) for McNealy to hire a new CEO who, assuming a willingness to spend the time and make the effort, could certify that Sun's financial results are as likely to be as accurate as the rest of the companies in the Fortune 500.

To: Charles Tutt who wrote (50672)	7/25/2002 7:16:03 AM
From: JDN	Respond to of 64865

Dear Charles: Well, the stated reason is to assist in securing investor confidence (now shaken) in public financial statements. I SUSPECT that the wording is such that it will make it easier to prosecute lying CEO and CFO's in the event that were to happen. Personally, I am very distraught that Scott would even hesitate to sign, he is one of the last people I would have suspected of not having full and complete confidence in the information presented. Shakes my belief in him somewhat. JDN