What Confidence in the SEC?

Wednesday, November 04, 2009 , , , 2 Comments

Can someone please define "confidence"?

AICPA Journal of Accountancy:

A group of key stakeholders in U.S. capital market regulations sent a joint letter to the leaders of the House Financial Services Committee to discourage possible proposals that would realign the oversight of FASB within the structure of systemic risk regulation. The letter said the SEC should remain “the primary agency with oversight over accounting standard setting.”

The letter was signed by Cindy Fornelli, executive director of the Center for Audit Quality; Tom Quaadman, executive director for reporting policy and investor opportunity at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Center for Capital Markets Competitiveness; and Jeff Mahoney, general counsel for the Council of Institutional Investors.

The letter argues that removing FASB from the SEC’s purview would affect the independence of accounting standard setting and that “the SEC has been and continues to be best suited to provide the oversight of the FASB for such a broad and diverse economy.”

It said that for investors, businesses and other users to maintain confidence in the standards underlying financial statements “the process by which accounting standards are developed must be free—both in fact and appearance—of outside influences that inappropriately benefit any particular participant or group of participants in the financial reporting system to the detriment of investors, businesses and capital markets.” It said a realignment of oversight of FASB “within the structure of systemic risk regulation could have adverse impacts on investor confidence, which is of critical importance to the successful operation of the U.S. capital markets.”

Pretend I am a child and don't know what it means when you explain it to me. No, wait, pretend I'm 28 and have absolutely no idea what they mean when they say "confidence in the SEC." And then show me an example of someone who does have that and maybe I can comment on this further.

Until then, I have no idea what you are talking about. But I do remember something about rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic if that comes in handy here.

Jr Deputy Accountant

Some say he’s half man half fish, others say he’s more of a seventy/thirty split. Either way he’s a fishy bastard.


Robert said...

Any of these should do..but I think#3 or #6 might be best suited to this situation...



First example looks grumpy. Grumpy thinks more clearly.

Feeling grumpy 'is good for you'

An attack of the grumps can make you communicate better, it is suggested

In a bad mood? Don't worry - according to research, it's good for you.

An Australian psychology expert who has been studying emotions has found being grumpy makes us think more clearly.

In contrast to those annoying happy types, miserable people are better at decision-making and less gullible, his experiments showed.

While cheerfulness fosters creativity, gloominess breeds attentiveness and careful thinking, Professor Joe Forgas told Australian Science Magazine.