|
| quote: | Originally posted by TheNobleEu
No, it really isn't -- I think you're still missing the point:
The EU regulations are five times as stringent as the US's; the laws that shackle the US in the EU, simply not being present in the States, gives the EU free reign to dominate the US market while the US cannot do the same in the EU.
The EU can and already has slapped the US with billions in fines and corporate loses.
This is why I chuckled at the notion that 'the EU has to observe US antitrust equally,' quite true in theory, a farsical notion in practice. That's like going from the MLB to the minor A and then asserting one can compare the two on equal footing. 
The USA simply doesn't possess the political will (re: state of and political influence of corporate enviroments) to "catch up" with EU antitrust law.
|
Huh? Ok point to some tangible losses US companies are facing in the EU asides from Microsoft (which both the US and EU prosecuted and fined mind you). What other US companies are withering away in the face of such disparity? You think that strict regulatory controls are aiding EU companies? Hmmm yea that might explain why 7 of the 10 largest companies in the world are US based:
http://www.forbes.com/lists/results...olumnClick=true
Yup, these companies will be going down now  .
As a matter of fact, the biggest complaining about adhereing to regulatory requirements comes from the EU over the Sarbanes-Oxley requirements:
| quote: |
Europeans complain over Sarbanes Oxley costs and to SEC over U.S. listing requirements
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by London on Feb 12, 2004, 20:24
European companies, worried about the costs and restrictions of complying with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, are mounting a drive to make it easier for them to stop complying with U.S. securities laws.
In a letter to William Donaldson, the chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, 11 organizations of companies - saying they represented 100,000 European companies including more than 100 whose securities are traded in the United States, asked for changes that would make it easier for them to stop being registered with the SEC. The letter was made public Wednesday.
.
While some European companies are "quite satisfied with their experience in the U.S. market," others have concluded that the costs are not worth the benefits, said the letter, signed by business leaders including Alain Joly, the president of the European Association for Listed Companies and the chairman of the supervisory board of Air Liquide.
.
"There is a feeling of, 'Why do you want to have a U.S. listing,'" said Edward Greene, a partner in the London office of Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen Hamilton, who prepared a proposal for changes in U.S. rules for the European companies. "The costs of Sarbanes-Oxley have been substantial. The hidden sleeper has been the upcoming attestation of internal controls. It really is a substantial effect on costs and audit fees."
The rule he referred to, whose implementation was delayed until 2005 for foreign companies, requires corporate executives to certify that internal financial controls are adequate, and requires outside auditors to certify that the management's conclusions are accurate. Companies have complained that will raise audit fees substantially.
Greene, a former SEC general counsel, said many companies were also concerned about bars on company loans to executives. They were included in Sarbanes-Oxley when it was passed in 2001, in the aftermath of the Enron and WorldCom scandals, both of which involved loans to executives.
Under current law, a company that wants to sell securities to the public in the United States, or to list securities on a U.S. market, must reconcile its financial statements to U.S. accounting rules and comply with American securities laws, including Sarbanes-Oxley.
A company that no longer values a U.S. listing can easily delist from the exchange, Greene said. But it remains subject to the securities laws unless it can show that it has fewer than 300 American investors. To do that, it must conduct research to determine its actual shareholders, regardless of whether those holders bought the shares in America or overseas. That is a difficult standard to meet, and even if it is met the company might have to resume complying with the U.S. rules in a later year if the number goes back above 300.
.
The companies proposed that European concerns should be able to drop their registration if they delisted and showed that less than 5 percent of their share volume was in the United States. That would cover many prominent companies, including some that trade in substantial volume in New York. For example, hundreds of thousands of shares of Deutsche Telekom, the German telephone company, are traded each day on the Big Board. But that volume is dwarfed by its volume in Germany.
.
The European companies' proposal would not apply to Japanese or other overseas companies because it assumes the European companies would follow new International Accounting standards, as they are expected to do beginning in 2005, although some European companies are resisting the international rule on accounting for derivatives.
.
An SEC spokesman in Washington declined to comment on the letter. But the proposal is likely to run into some opposition in America, since it would be seen as a step on the road to acceptance of international standards as being equivalent to American ones.
.
European companies that listed in the United States did so in some cases to be able to use stock to acquire U.S. companies, or to gain access to American capital markets. But many have found that American institutional investors are willing to buy shares overseas, wherever the most liquidity is. And companies that are not listed in the United States can sell securities there in private offerings, under an SEC rule known as 144A, so long as the buyers are institutional investors.
.
"As a result," said the letter, "many of our member companies with U.S. listed securities find that they have no greater access to the U.S. market than other companies whose securities are listed only in Europe."
http://www.srimedia.com/artman/publish/article_753.shtml
|
Wait for what? That article didn’t address any of my points. The US is the largest net importer of Chinese goods. Where else do you think those goods are going to go? For christ’s sake, did you get any higher level education in economics? Do you not understand how markets work?? How the global economy works??
| quote: |
Sigh. You're catching the disinformation bug.
Never mind.
Cheers,
-Noble |
No let’s not never mind. You’ve been cherry picking which arguments you respond to after I come back with evidence to support my claims, and that’s fine. But it’s utterly fucking ridiculous for you to accuse me of being misinformed when you’ve provided no evidence whatsoever to support your claims other than baseless, hypothetical conjecture on your part. My original claim was this:
| quote: |
occrider: Did Great Britain undergo its industrial revolution due to a war? No it was fueled by resources, technology, labor, etc., the same as America. |
to which you replied this:
| quote: |
Noble: Hmm, and the Crimean and Boer Wars?
|
Clearly indicating that Great Britain underwent the industrial revolution due to the Crimean and Boer War, obtuse to the fact that both these wars occurred 30 and 50 years after the industrial revolution started. So now you’re arguing that both these had a major influence on the industrial revolution ... fine. Well, what influence did they have??? Would the industrial revolution sputtered out and died without these wars? Would output have been twice as less? Would Great Britain be playing American football without these wars? You clearly haven’t done any research into this at all so far, because you haven’t provided any evidence whatsoever to support your [b]baseless[./b] claims. And then you accuse me of being guilty of being misinformed because you haven’t provided any iota of evidence to convince me that you know anything about what you’re talking about???
___________________
Retro ...
Last edited by occrider on Jun-21-2005 at 16:43
|
