On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 15:56:30 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
I think the answer you would get from most close observers is that the
globalized finance industry doesn't give brownie points for well-regulated
participants. You're either in the game, internationally, or you're not. You
either lead the way, or you follow. The US, including many liberal members
of Congress back in the '80s and '90s, decided that they would give the US
industry a chance to play at the top tier, and hopefully to dominate, at a
time when London, Paris, and (in the '80s) Tokyo were threatening to take
that position.
That they largely did.
--
Ed Huntress
===============
This may indeed be the case, but it fails to address the WIIFM
[what's in it for me] question from the citizen's/taxpayer's
point of view. Why should I as a taxpayer give a rap if CSFB,
Merril Lynch, Bear Stearns, BlackRock, Carlyle, etc. makes a
dime, or gets to play with the big boys?
This segues into yet more questions/observations:
You can review SecTreas Paulson's executive summary and proposed
changes to the Federal oversight of the financial sector here
http://media.npr.org/documents/2008/..._factsheet.pdf
http://media.npr.org/documents/2008/..._blueprint.pdf
While I have not yet completely read his entire proposal, it
appears to have been written by several individuals (or even
several working groups), and combined in a word processor for
consistent formatting and spell check, as the proposed actions
are not consistent, except for the themes of "deregulation," and
yet more "free market."
[The phrase "if you can't impress them with your brilliance,
baffle them with your bulls**t" comes to mind here.]
The lead editorial in the Tuesday April 1 WSJ notes:
"... the mortgage mania and panic weren't caused by a failure of
the regulatory "structure" or a dearth of rules. {however I note
that a lack of *ENFORCEMENT* of those rules may well have been a
proximent cause} ==They were caused by a failure of the men and
women who ran those financial and regulatory institutions."==
(emphasis added)
{I also note that the "results" as measured by the personal gains
to these individuals may have been highly satisfactory, although
a failure and catastrophe to the stockholders and taxpayers.}
SecTres Paulson's proposed "overhaul" does not appear to address
the vital question of corporate governance or individual
responsibility/accountability in any way.
Given the tendency of long serving officers and directors to
regard the corporation as "theirs," (rather than the
stockholders') I suggest the immediate imposition of term limits
on individual tenure for the positions of CEO, CFO and directors
of all major publicly traded corporations. Both for particular
positions, and in combination, for example no person allowed to
serve as CEO or CFO for more than 8 years or as CEO and CFO for
more than a total of 12 years, with directors limited to a total
of 10 years, including any service as CEO and/or CFO.
"More of the same only better," is not going to hack it this
time.
Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?
Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).