In Paducah, the beauty parlor operator and the kitcat café
owner are besides themselves. In Louisville, they talk about it on sidewalk
corners and at bus stops. In Lexington, the subject of horse races has been
dropped, and it is the theme of knitting circles and barroom conversations.
I’m talking, of course, of the ardent desire of millions of
Kentuckians to see IPO law changed to remove regulation, transparency, and
accounting standards that impede the simple pleasure of rentseeking and fraud.
The man with his hand on the pulse of Kentucky is Kentucky
senator Mitch Mcconnell. Many doubt that Paduchians, for instance, are more
fascinated by the possibility that the less than one percent of ‘small”
businesses – the American governing class loves the word “small” as much as
Starbucks loves the word “tall”, and applies it to all things bright and
beautiful – who actually do have an IPO than they are by the fact that, for
instance, a prominent Middle School principle was recently arrested for rape
and unlawful imprisonment. But those doubters were corrected yesterday by
Mitch, who is quoted in the NYT:
“Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader,
urged members of both parties to approve the bill as it was to avoid further
delays. “This bill is exactly the kind of thing Americans have been asking for
— greater freedom and flexibility. And that’s one of the reasons it’s had such
overwhelming bipartisan support,” Mr. McConnell said.”
And what is that flexibility and freedom about, when we look
under the hood? As Simon Johnson and Bill Black have pointed out, a bill that
damages transparency and accounting requirements will in all likelihood be very
good – for bucket shops and Wall Street investment banks that like to bet
against their clients. It will be very bad for “small” businesses. Yves Smithquotes John Coates on the issue:
“While the various proposals being considered have been
characterized as promoting jobs and economic growth by reducing regulatory
burdens and costs, it is better to understand them as changing, in similar
ways, the balance that existing securities laws and regulations have struck
between the transaction costs of raising capital, on the one hand, and the
combined costs of fraud risk and asymmetric and unverifiable information, on
the other hand.”
No comments:
Post a Comment