Tea party ideology, and what it will lead to

Tea party ideology, and what it will lead to?

Another 4 years for Mr. Obama as president.

 

The market corrected itself by destroying the stock prices of any companies that had accounting irregularities.

Government regulation has simply raised the cost of companies being public so therefore reducing the ability for companies to go public recieve funds and expand their business or have owners monetize their stake. This stifles expansion and job building.

Government regulation is always reactionary to have politicians feel they've fixed the problem when the markets have already done so.

No government regulation will fix the next bubble, whatever it is, as its based on the belief of a continued trend till it bubbles into euphoria.

 

Couldnt have said it better.

 

Are you Palin's love child? The similarity of your syntax is uncanny.

 

can you please give a specific example of a company not going public because of sarbanes oxley.

yes we should wait for disaster and the market to correct itself. never mind all the money lost in retirement funds

 

Look at the financial markets? Look at housing prices? Look at unemployment? Look at Americans sentiment or any barometer of economic strength.

How can you people blame the tea party???

This has been Obama's show for 3 YEARS now?? C'mon take the freaking blinders off. This guys is inexperienced and just seems lost when it comes to showing confidence to America and the economy.

Democrats have been running things for years and they're blaming a small movement for their issues. Take some responsibility for your inability to turn the country around please.

 

As i'm in these markets I can't state examples, but its costs around a million dollars a year for SOX compliance and to be public in todays market. For Coca Cola thats not a problem for for companies that have market cap's in the 30-50 million range with cash flows of 5-10 million a year thats a big hit.

So people don't get access to public companies and capital is stifled therefore not going to companies that need it to expand, HIRE or do anything that creates jobs, commerce and economic strength.

 

forget sending madoff to jail, just let the market correct itself

 

so you think a 10 billion dollar company is paying the same as a 100 million dollar company for compliance.

please come back wit a specific example

 

In black Monday in 1987 the Dow fell 25% and was under 1000. In 1999 the dow was over 10,000.

The public markets have been the greatest creator of wealth known to man but volatility and stagnation was expected after that excessive runup that drove earnings multiples through the roof. The market was also flat from 1967 to 1981. Markets are not consistent, but volatile.

If one lost money over the long run, you've got the wrong skipper.

 

Don't be an idiot. Of course its not the same but there are base minimal fixed costs and then larger firms have variable above that.

Those base fixed costs are higher due to SOX and such and therefore that combined with compressed multiples are keeping companies from going public.

For every regulation and cost, there is a tradeoff.

Is this really that hard to understand?

 

so what are you complaining about?

 

i understand you haven't proven that sarbanes oxley is keeping companies from going public.

can you break down these costs

 

Don't be an ass.

Nice extreme nonsense to change the subject of your ignorance towards the ways the financial markets work.

 

This is a simple concept, if you can't understand than go back to school as I can't play wet nurse.

 

okay, forget sending ken lay to jail, we should just let the market correct itself

 

what specific costs are preventing companies from going public. really, i haven't read that, can you site evidence?

 

I know when I was at Image Metrics we did not go public because of sarbanes oxley.

For a small company - under 40 employees it was going to cost us about $100k per year to be in compliance.

That is a huge chunk of revenue to be spending....and sometimes it is not worth the risk.

DD

 

I agree with rm81 that SOx would, on the margin, discourage companies from going public, and it is besides that a drag on profitability for the shareholders. Not to mention being a real drag for all the people in accounting and finance that have to deal with it. But, it also helps protect investors from fraud and from some idiosynchratic risk, and it helps management understand their own operations. So it's not a total loss and I wouldn't be terribly interested in getting rid of it.

Essentially, accounting regulations buy some insurance against accounting calamities. The market trades a little return for a decrease in risk. Maybe it sucks for the little guy who needs access to the capital markets to grow their businesses, but if he can't extend the assurance to the market that SOx provides, maybe he doesn't deserve it anyway.

 

DERP YA 30 YEARS OF DEREG AND A FINANCiAL COLLAPSE WILL DO THAT DERP