Why would you lie to make someone think you were a lawyer? And where would you get the experience to make it believeable?
yeah i'm not disagreeing that emerging markets are offering a lot more. i think like 80 to 90% of new US market investment funds went to emerging markets. i don't even know that much about SOX, but i just know that was the reason that was given for why less IPOs occurred in America last year. hell, it's not like america investment companies are suffering from this development. GS made a killing off of the bank of china IPO, but goldman makes money off of everything.
there's a whole section of the bar that's organized to stop people from doing just that. i'm just trying to clarify what he's saying.
blackstone is going public along with KKR. private equity firms are trying to capitalize on the public demand to invest in them. the fortress investment IPO was huge. also, what do you mean by mercenary firm? they are just a private equity firm. a very smart PE firm.
While I agree SOX is needed and good for the investors. It does add one extra layer of cost for companies listed already or trying to go public. A lot of companies in emerging markets like China lacks the transparency and internal control, to comply with SOX, they would need to add a lot money and resource. This is one of the big reasons some of them decided to list on local exchanges. From what I have seem, there are still a lot of companies from Asia would like to list on American exchanges. Of course now days, American investors can still invest in companies not listed in US. Access to US capital is really not a problem anymore. One thing about SOX, it sure is feeding an army of controllers, auditors and lawyers. This thing created a new industry.
The problem is not with the big companies but with the small ones. The costs are exhorbitant for them and cost-prohibitive for many that are considering the IPO route. That bill is a huge drain on productivity for small, public businesses, and impairs the capital raising ability for private companies considering their alternatives. These days, you almost have to have a CFO with an accounting background to fill the position, given all the red tape and land mines that have to be avoided. Sarbox is exactly the kind of creation you'd expect when lawyers start to insert themselves into the business side of things...
I am mainly pointing out your tendencies. Instead of discussing the topic at hand, you take pot shots at Bush or US in general, even when the subject is completely unrelated. This makes you look like someone who has no clue about the subject, that's all.
About being one in active practice-- soon to be solo. (I know it is sort of embarassing in some circles).
It is the Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee of the honorable (at least in their own minds) State Bar of TX. I am in good standing and have never lost a grievance, though, like traffic tickets some of these things can be a hassle. I think in the future,assuming I get one (and it has been a couple of years, despite a volume type practice) I will stop representiing myself before the grievance committee.
BTW I have had a secretary/ assistant or two for most of my 20 plus years in private practice, mostly in a partnership, soon to end. I started the business that is the basis of the partnership before bringing in my other partner. I am actually a rugged legal entrepeneur who has to make a payroll unlike TJ who I suspect is a mere employee sucking off the company tit. If all goes well, I may hire an associate to do most of my remaining work that my assistant of about 12 years cannot do, so that I can semi retire and travel a lot, like Sam. Maybe even retire like Dakota, though I would hate to spend all my time without a little bit of work-- or at least that is my guess. I am still mulling this over, but since my new solo practice opens on May 1, 2007, I might even give you guys my website, which is a dynamite domain name, i have had for years, though the site is largely undeveloped.
