Seems like the question is whether we have quality assurance priced 
properly. I'd have no problem with the U.S. capital markets representing the 
gold standard for probity, truth, and quality, but it is hard to know how 
much expenditure is necessary to achieve that. If registering in the U.S. 
capital markets became a signal for honesty and integrity in ones numbers, 
then stocks so listed should command a premium for reduced risk instead of a 
risk premium.

But it's hard to know how when one is wasting money toward that end.

I assume that is the desired end.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Walter Hutchens" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 2:52 PM
Subject: Re: SOX reform, probity and honesty


> Without delving into the separation of powers argument (a reiteration of
> the original challenges to the New Deal?), one dimension of "mending not
> ending" Sarbox will be its impact on the competitiveness of US capital
> markets.
>
> Last year one of the world's biggest IPOs was China Construction Bank.
> It raised USD 9 billion listing only in Hong Kong. Previously, jumbo
> IPOs out of China (and elsewhere) tended to list on both HK and US
> exchanges (eg, China Life's global IPO raised USD 3 billion listing on
> HKEx and NYSE).  Other  PRC issuers like the  Bank of China, expected to
> list this year, also now seem to be steering clear of  US markets partly
> due to perceptions about the regulatory environment.
>
> Keeping issuers of the kind cited out of the US may be desirable, but
> not all companies listing elsewhere (or not listing at all) are as
> dubious as PRC banks--some are probably solid companies concerned about
> the cost of US compliance.
>
> Walter Hutchens
>
>
> Daniel Warner wrote:
>> Hi All:
>>
>> These items that Rick Coffin forwarded are interesting.
>>
>> Regarding SOX and the complaints that it is a big power grab by meddling
>> regulators, etc., I'm reminded of response to the Securities Act of
>> 1933:
>>
>> "Provisions for such sweeping potential liability caused shock and
>> indignation among the phalanxes of New York lawyer who reviewed the
>> legislation.  One investment banker, Eustace Seligman, thought the
>> entire concept unnecessary, explaining that 'bankers of standing and
>> financial responsibility have in every case that I have been associate
>> with gone to extreme caution.'  Felix Frankfurter, a Harvard Law School
>> professor and one of the drafters of the bill, regretted that men of
>> Seligman's probity and honesty had not be connected with all security
>> issues.  'Then, He added with sarcasm, 'there would be no need for any
>> corrective legislation.'"
>>
>> Dan Warner
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of [log in to unmask]
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 5:37 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject:
>>
>> Colleagues: I have attached to items from today's news you may find of
>> interest.  I would be interested in your thoughts regarding the likely
>> success of the challenge to SOX.
>>
>> Rick
>>
>