Larry Ribstein, who writes on Ideoblog, asks:
Is there potential [Sarbanes-Oxley] internal controls liability for Bear executives? If not, and melt-downs like this can happen after SOX (worth $80+/share one day, $2 the next), then what was it, exactly, that SOX did for us? Could it be that SOX didn't eliminate risk after all? ... So two possible lessons from Bear: We didn't need SOX, and it didn't do any good.
Lessons from Bear on SOX [Ideoblog]
Posted by guest , Mar 18, 2008 11:09AM
How about a two part poll? What's the Fed going to do? & How will the market react?
Better yet, scrap that. Let's go back to "What music would you put on to try to seduce Bess Levin?".
Posted by guest , Mar 18, 2008 11:12AM
Fed cuts 50bps, says "F U market, broker earnings are fine, we bailed out your stupid bear stearns, we give you $500 bn liquidity programs, 50 is all you need right now."
Posted by guest , Mar 18, 2008 11:14AM
Saying you don't need SOX is like saying you don't need a fire department after a house burns to the ground.
Posted by DrederickTatum , Mar 18, 2008 11:18AM
As an attorney, I've found SOX to be an invaluable tool for driving up my personal income... and I know the accountants have made a killing on SOX too.
Other than that, SOX is fairly worthless. It's even more irrelevant for an I-bank holding huge positions like Bear Stearns. Congress can spend all the time it wants trying to craft financial regulations... Its simply impossible to create regulatory policy capable of keeping with the sudden, massive shifts in margins.
That said, its entirely possible that BSC directors face some type of SOX liability. It's all speculation though until we know more about the liabilities that precipitated the implosion of Bear.
Posted by Anonymous , Mar 18, 2008 11:23AM
SOX is a great success, just like gun control in D.C.
Posted by Finnegan , Mar 18, 2008 11:23AM
@11:14, so true.
This post is similar to a man who goes to Burger King, finds mouse in his burger, and says, "See, this makes me question Sarbannes totally".
Agree with @11:12. While I believe in Fed action, they've done quite a bit and eventually too much pissing in the pot gets everyone noticing your pants are down and your unit is not so big.
(Seduce Bess with some Jesus music. Jars of Clay mehbee. A contrarian play that will delight her with your willingness to both delight and offend).
Posted by guest , Mar 18, 2008 11:27AM
somebody needs to caption the picture of blankfein on the front of wsj.com
Posted by guest , Mar 18, 2008 11:32AM
In my opinion, Bear Stearns was downed by rumors ... nothing more. Welcome to the wonderful world of OTC trading, where a lack of centralized clearing means that the financial integrity of the entire system is set by the weakest player. How is SOX supposed to guard against that?
Posted by guest , Mar 18, 2008 12:49PM
SOX=Y2K joke! I *still* haven't upgraded my software for Y2K - even though all the *consultants* (read whores) told me to do it. I wonder if it's too late? How is Arthur Anderson doing anyway? SOX is simply a way for consultants/lawyers/whores to pad their billings. Just more worthless government paperwork. And don't get me started on the Incompetent Revenue Service...
Posted by guest , Mar 18, 2008 1:06PM
Bear's fall didn't have shit to do with SOX.
Posted by Anal_yst , Mar 18, 2008 1:41PM
@ 11:27
Wait, thats not Mini-me?
Posted by guest , Mar 18, 2008 9:38PM
I'm sympathetic to a lot of the anti-SOX arguments, but "If Sarb-Ox couldn't save Bear, what good is it?" is one of the very dumbest I've come across.