Quote from Hydroblunt:
I meant they are paying these execs & CEOs millions of dollars and I assume that if you are gonna pay such high compensation that you would expect the CEO would be making sure that this type fraud would not be happening. Refco is a severe case, yet it does not change the fact that this guy was in a position of power to ruin the company at the expense of shareholders & employees. So he will go to white collar prison to play golf and live in better conditions than most of USA, while a whole company is ruined.
My whole point is that whatever happens to the shareholders & employees is deserved. This is far from the first time that anything like this has happened and it is certainly far from an anomaly in the corporate world. Corporate fraud by execs keeps increasing along with their compensation, yet no reforms have taken place.
Your first paragraph is extremely obvious.
What you have stated is by no means anything new.
Of course the CEO was in a position of power to ruin the company, not unlike many CEO's that have done so before Sarbannes-Oaxley. How does the multi-million dollar compensated CEO go about preventing such a fraud WHEN IT WAS HE HIMSELF THAT PERPETUATED THE FRAUD?
Aside from the fact that in the case of REFCO, the CEO was the one that apparently did not care that he signed-off on the financial statements per the Sarbannes-Oaxley Era, thus setting himself up for criminal accountability - - - I really don't see what your point is.
Moreover, I fail to see what CEO compensation has to do with this, or what some sort of "reforms" could have been instituted to prevent the situation that occured at REFCO. The accountants at Grant Thornton missed the fraud, as did the auditors who conducted due-diligence for the private equity firm, Thomas Lee that brought REFCO public in a recent IPO.
Compensation has nothing to do with whether or not a senior manager such as a CEO or CFO will commit fraud. The CFO at REFCO, Gerald Sherer makes $166,000 per year. What does his salary/compensation have to do with whether or not a fraud has been committed, or whether or not he should have been aware of such a fraud by the CEO? One would have thought that being criminally accountable per Sarbannes-Oaxley would have been a VERY STRONG and SUFFICIENT deterent, but it was clearly not in this case.
As for your second paragraph, I strongly DISAGREE with your statement that employees and shareholders of REFCO will be getting what they deserve. Is the retail compliance manager suppose to be privy to the CEO's fraud? Is the guy in Prime Brokerage clearing operations suppose to know about the CEO's fraud? How about the retail broker on the Refco LLC side of the business that handles Refco Pro Electronic Platform Trading Accounts? Is he suppose to also know about the CEO's fraudulent activities? The clerk in payroll?
The HR manager?
Why do all of these employees need to suffer at the expense of a fraud perpetuated by the CEO?
Your logic escapes me.
It makes no sense whatsoever.
