Categories:United States

Wall St crisis? Blame SarBox

  • Print
  • Comments (18)

Readers' comments (18)

  • SOX

    Sarbox is better know in the financial world as SOX. The regulations for these have been relaxed somewhat over the last 2 years, but regardless, all of the documented processes needed to comply with these regulations are not "new" requirements. They are rules that should have always been followed by any good financially minded company. The burden of SOX comes in the formal documentation adn regular testing of the newly required regulations.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Oh please!

    Spoken like someone that does not have ANY clue of what is happening. SarBox did not have, does not have or will not have any impact on the goings on of Wall Street. Wall Street's woes can be traced directly to the repeal of the Steel-Steagall Act in 1999 (yes this a REPEAL of regulation). Without this law, the line between commercial and investment banking was abolished and fiascoes that we are now experienced were allowed to happen. What next, SarBox causes AIDS????

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Good article.

    timely opinion from a legal view.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Wall St. Crisis

    John, I hope you send your article to all of the brilliant minds we have in the financial community, our current administration and by the way our presidential candidates. I am certain it would open many eyes. It certainly opened mine.
    Thank you.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • International Presence

    Sarbox may have reduced listings in the US (helping London become the pre-eminent financial centre), however the investment banks long ago realised that they could make money on listings elsewhere, that is one reason why they have/had a global presence - including in particular in London (Lehman's £8bn in revenue just before insolvency sent to the US!?).

    Please check on what proportion of those 1739 listings one of the five main US Investment banks acted as bookrunner/advisor. Then provide your comments. I think we will see it was not necessarily Sarbox that caused the problem.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Enlighting

    I have learned more about the issue now, Thank you for your enlightening article.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Excellent Article

    Brilliand and insightful article, great analysis and the author is not afraid to tell the world and our leaders the truth behind this fiasco. I wish the author was running for public office.

    I noticed that the one vulgar person who disagreed with the article was so uneducated and ignorant that he didn't even know the name of the Glass-Steagall Act he attempted to discuss (he called it Steel-Steagal), clearly his lack of understanding and knowledge doesn't stop at not knowing the name.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Excellent Article

    Excellent article, it is so true. I'm a lawyer in Beijing and there are so many Chinese enterprises that want to list their IPO’s in the US rather than in London or Hong Kong, but end up choosing another location because of Sarbox. For example, one of the largest software companies in China last year canceled their planned listing at NASDAQ as a result of Sarbox.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Fantastic Article - Editor please forward to our leaders

    John Maalouf and Alan Greenspan are two of the only people who appear to have an understanding of this financial crisis. Fantastic article, please forward this to our leaders and presidential candidates.

    I noted that one earlier commentator is under the mistaken impression that the U.S. investment banks such as Lehman that have offices in the U.K. made profits regardless of where the IPO’s were taking place, that is mostly incorrect. When the IPO’s left the U.S., after Sarbox (or SOX as some non-financial people like to call it) came into effect, many of the U.S. investment banks tried to follow, however they were for the most part unsuccessful.

    The analogy would be losing $100 but finding a quarter, they made a very small amount of money overseas and John is right, they lost billions every year. This is why Morgan Stanley and Goldman are converting to commercial banks, in order to generate a new safe and steady stream of income to replace the lost IPO fee income.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Crisis isn't about IPOs

    This isn't about SarBox, it's about sub-prime mortgages and derivatives. Lenders lent to people they shouldn't, then no-one understood where the losses were going to end up. Where IPOs take place is small beer in comparison.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 per page | 20 per page

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields

Mandatory

Comments that are in breach or potential breach of our terms and conditions in particular clause 8, may not be published or, if published, may subsequently be taken down. In addition we may remove any comment where a complaint is made in respect of it. These actions are at our sole discretion.

  • Print
  • Comments (18)