CEO signoff

M

mattjclark

Does anyone think that this idea is worth a damn?


At first I thought it was a good idea, but now I’m thinking that if I’m a CEO, and my books are cooked, why would I want to reveal that fact to the public?

Pro’s

1) A clear conscious


Con’s

1) Loss of job
2) Name and family drug through the mud for years
3) Armani suits are traded in for orange overalls
4) Every comfort in life as you know it, is gone forever


Seriously, why would someone that has been cheating the public in the past suddenly feel the need to come clean?

I think we're just making another layer of false confidence, that when broken will cause our markets to fall even further.

Thoughts?
 
Doesn't make a lot of sense to me. With the size of these multi-national, multi-subsidiary companies, there is no way a CEO can be assured that something isn't amiss within an organization of the size they are asking them to certify.

Management already signs a representation letter for the auditors which states basically the same thing. Lot of good that has done.
 
Originally posted by crackedback
Doesn't make a lot of sense to me. With the size of these multi-national, multi-subsidiary companies, there is no way a CEO can be assured that something isn't amiss within an organization of the size they are asking them to certify.

Management already signs a representation letter for the auditors which states basically the same thing. Lot of good that has done.
More...

I'm right there with you cracked. Hell I used to work for Ernst & Young, and I know how difficult it was to get any level of confidence in the financial statements of a large corporation.


I've seen instances where no one was trying to mislead, it just so happened the computer program designed to aggregate the financial statements was misprogrammed. Hell, that happened all the time.

There is no way I would sign one of those documents even if I thought my company was spotless.
 
Agreed Babak.

The whole thing is a farce. We have plenty of "laws" on the books. Enforcement of existing laws would be a step in the right direction. This new directive should make the lemmings feel good.
 
silly endeavour to make the sheep believe that Harvey Pitt is on their side and doing something..
More...

Yeah, what Babak said.

Plus you can always sign subject to a zillion conditions.

e.g. I certify these numbers to be true subject to these numbers been accurately and truthfully presented to me etc...

The art of the deal is to pass the blame around while gathering all the loot.

Then CNBC will come up and say that XYZ company CEO ( chief embezzlement officer), has indeed signed the certification and you can all buy this stock as it is now has a target of 800.


Josh
 
The 14th is not a real deadline. Most are required to sign "as of your next SEC filing after the 14th". So all of the folks who are riding the mo train up and down on this magical day may be sorely disappointed.
 
Then CNBC will come up and say that XYZ company CEO ( chief embezzlement officer), has indeed signed the certification and you can all buy this stock as it is now has a target of 800.
More...

Exactly, just another way for the street to fleece the sheep.

I like the CEO acronym, CFO = Chief Fraud Officer

Later,

Cracked
 
Originally posted by ktm
The 14th is not a real deadline. Most are required to sign "as of your next SEC filing after the 14th". So all of the folks who are riding the mo train up and down on this magical day may be sorely disappointed.
More...

It didn't make sense that they'd pick a magic day. Thanks for pointing that out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top