Paul Kurtz on the Current Economic Recession
December 18, 2008
#1 Bill Pelton (Guest) on Friday December 19, 2008 at 11:52am
I agree with Paul Kurtz that a balanced approach to the economy is what is needed. Unfortunately, we usually tend to overcorrect in all social and economic matters. No action is taken until a crisis occurs, and then we lurch (or the pendulum swings) too far in the other direction. The Sarbanes-Oxley legislation, in response to the Enron debacle, is one such example. That legislation has been extremely costly in terms of money and time, and has had the effect of driving new global businesses away from New York to the London Stock Exchange and AIM. It is a major effect, and a major blow to American competitiveness. Let us hope that the current financial crisis does not lead to a similar over-correction and avalanche of legislation and unnecessary regulation which further reduces our competitiveness.
#2 r strle (Guest) on Sunday December 21, 2008 at 12:54pm
“The Sarbanes-Oxley legislation, in response to the Enron debacle, is one such example. That legislation has been extremely costly in terms of money and time, and has had the effect of driving new global businesses away from New York to the London Stock Exchange and AIM.”
Could you explain how the Sarbanes-Oxley Legislation has been extremely costly in terms of money and time and driven away new global business. Was there a better way to achieve the desired result?
#3 Bill Pelton (Guest) on Sunday December 21, 2008 at 7:51pm
There is a balanced write-up on Sarbanes-Oxley at
#4 r strle (Guest) on Monday December 22, 2008 at 9:48am
I apologize for my ignorance but I do not understand why it matters to you what exchange you go public with. I can see that maybe the owners of the New York stock exchange see SOX as cutting into their business but as long as your stock is available to be traded by interested investors what do you care? Again it may be pure ignorance on my part but I assume that with today’s information technology any stock can be traded on any exchange in the world.
#5 Bill Pelton (Guest) on Monday December 22, 2008 at 10:49am
It is simply a matter of cost and time.
Sarbanes Oxley compliance costs a small company as much as $3 million a year in additional costs for legal fees, accounting fees, Directors and Officers insurance etc. as well as a great deal of executive time. Sarbanes Oxley applies only to companies who go public in the US.
Therefore, I would rather go public on a different exchange in a different country, where I do not have to pay these additional fees. Then I can distribute $3 million per year in additional profits to my shareholders, and spend more executive time planning new products and services, rather than discussing compliance with lawyers.
Sarbanes-Oxley compliance is very costly and time-consuming for small companies. It has driven many small companies to go public in Canada and the UK, where there is no Sarbanes-Oxley Act, and where being a public company is less costly and less time-consuming for executives.