As we add regulations to the public companies with SarbOx, maybe CEO pay in future,,,we're going to stretch the difference between private and public companies. Actually it appears that a consensus is developing that SarbOx went too far. The villians at Enron are in jail, none of them prosecuted under SarbOx, but instead under existing regulations at the time of the crimes. In many ways SarbOx has become the accountant's full employment act--auditor fees in a public company I'm familiar with have tripled. we just need to make sure that new regulations make sense, and we don't have the age old problem of unintended consequences--like a significant % of public companies going private, where the small investor won't be able to invest.
I believe these issues are being studied now, and recommendations will surface. I'm not sure that it is a really big problem yet, because public companies have the tremendous advantage of being able to raise funds much more quickly, and from a much larger investor pool than private companies. That is an advantage that is not easily offset.
Bank lending and IPO are to bring the "lots of small inverstors" in (sum of small deposits or small share purchases), may be these are no longer needed now...
No data to choose which story has the biggest factor :).
Another point is that accountants have been made legally responsible by recent cases, asking for more money is a way to ask for more independance (because you can refuse more direct orders/clients), it might not be fully a result of SarbOx creating more work but just logic on existing regulation and recent legal outcomes.
As always, one narrative is not enough :).
Private equity firms in the buyout segment are taking more of a global view. They are looking at buying out firms headquartered overseas. And by necessity, this will move their business outside the US to some extent. London of course would be an ideal location. As an example of this, I invested in a buyout fund recently where they gave you options as to how you wanted your personal investment distributed between US and International--you could choose nothing outside the US, 10%, or 20% outside. (should be interesting for them to administer).
Second, the reaction to regulation I've heard as it regards moving outside the US, has been focused on small companies that are evaluating going public. SarbOx adds an estimated $2 million per year of spending to such companies, which is a big number for them. Some companies have therefore gone public on the London Stock Exchange, or others. The problem they have run into is there does not seem to be as much liquidity for small companies on those exchanges. You need people buying and selling a stock actively to make a market, and I've heard that is not happening.
I have not seen much data on either of my points--information is more anecdotal.
I would be interested in articles or data on the point you make. The regulatory issues in the US are more focused on public equity companies, so I'm not sure I understand the rationale for the argument.
Pension funds invest in weapons
It appears that Dutch pension funds are investing, for example, in companies producing cluster bombs or land mines.
What does this mean? Are there no better investments for retirenment?
