WAY WAY BACK in March of this year I cheered then Chairman of AIG, as he lamented and warned of Mark-to-Market take downs. I chickened out in June and pulled the story - BUT I repost it here and now - it was right then and its right now, In Canada new standards announced Oct 16 - relieve Canadian Banks from the onerous pressure of Mark-to-Market. And AIG is here, but gone - some of it stupidity from their British branch, some if the famed necessity of Mark-to-Market accounting.
BELOW are my original comments from March of 08.
The Sheriff of Wall Street aka “the Spitz” rode his white stallion up and down the backs of us all. He built a modern day McCarthyism, Salem Which Hunts – fear, fear of being accused of not having enough ‘compliance’. We began to look in closets for ‘compliance’ and under pillows – like it was an object. Imagine the shame of it being said “you don’t have compliance’. The Spitz it is revealed didn’t quite have it either – but so long as it looked like there was ‘compliance’ it would be such a good world, so much better.
And then a new pet grew called ‘Sarb-Ox’. A wild animal – that was supposed to cull the beast of ‘compliance’ solved by the boogey bear of - disclosure. And some entities (corporations) finally said “too much”. They said it quietly of course for fear of The Spitz. But quietly some of them moved to London and other exchanges of the world to avoid the “Sarb-Ox’ beast.
Its coming undone – even with Sarb-Ox still on the loose, not as wild, and now more tame – but still its come undone. And in the midst – funny enough so too did the “Spitz”.
Well congrats and Bravo to Martin Sullivan of AIG – I dun’o if he’s right or wrong as far as his firms reporting goes – but he’s opened the floor to the question….is the reporting right? Is the disclosure working, is it real – does it need adjustment? So does it? Are we going to be brave enough to enter the dialogue?
Before we answer – remember, is was America that put “anti-bribery legislation into place” – forced and forcing themselves to take a moral high-ground. So seemingly strict it tied the hands of US companies operating overseas…seemed good at the time…BUT there was an unseen consequence…at the Xerox office in Cairo – the ‘company’ paid the local phone repairman a tip, a stipend of about $15. per month to keep Xerox connected – this was, under the new ‘law’ considered – illegal. Xerox Cairo stopped illegally bribing the phone repair man to keep their service at operational levels and poof, so went the phone service – gone.
Reporting, disclosure, transparency – all good. But is there really any of it – or is it fog, that only is conveniently lifted by “Spitz” like fella’s to expose when it best suits ‘their’ needs?
Lets encourage Sullivan, let’s engage the question – if the transparency that’s been built, that’s torn down so many, was so great – how’d this mess happen?
