I'm a Cagney fan!

Anon--I guess what I liked about the article was how it discussed the scapegoating trend from the standpoint of Enron. Could such behavior have been tolerated five years ago, when we were reeling from Enron and Sarbox or Sox or whatever you call it was being lauded? I don't think so.

The media seems to blindly accept that Sarbox is effective, usually without a shred of evidence. Sometimes just saying what is in a law, as was done in this case, is the most effective rebuttal.

This scapegoating trend is definitely worth elaboration and I agree that the entire article could have been devoted to that alone.

My comment on SOX being involved in the Eagletech case is from the author's comment ""Dateline" also left out that Eagletech's stock registration had been revoked for not filing all those lovely, Sarbox-seal-of-approval financial statements" - which implies to me that failure to fulfill SOX requirements were part of the prosecution of Eagletech. I have no other information on this. If my interpretation is wrong, I stand corrected. It makes my case against the article stronger, though, because it's really not clear what he means here. (maybe I'm reaching here)

I'm no fan of SOX - that's one of the reasons I'm anonymous here in case I slip and reveal my identity or company. Not likely I'd be in big trouble but I don't want to risk it. At my company all I see is increased bureaucracy.

I agree that SOX is overhyped, also. Everytime I see on the news "Well this can't happen again because of SOX" I want to gag.

I just think this article makes the case poorly. I am left of center in most ways, but railing against the greedheads for being greedy and SOX for not changing their nature is just silly.

Perhaps Sarbox is used more widely in the press - the same comparison on Google news shows only a 6-1 preference. My view is limited to my company, the SOX consultants who worked with us, and tests I can make of external sources. As I said originally, perhaps I'm the outlier here, but I doubt it.

For another discussion - I watched "The Smartest Guys in the Room" the other day and wrt Enron and California it's clear to me that deregulation was foiled by Enron creating a monopoly at the distribution level - which is EXACTLY what business regulations should exist to prevent.

I thought your letter, though mistaken, was perfectly apropos.

Anonymous--you keep on saying something that isn't true, which is that Eagletech's indictment had something to do with Sarbanes Oxley. The article doesn't say that and it is just not so. I don't understand why you continue to promulgate that falsehood.

Can you name ONE fraud that was caught by Sarbanes Oxley? I didn't think so.

Also you miss entirely the point of the piece, which is that Sarbanes Oxley is overhyped. That point is well proven, and I think the blithe character of the "them" campaign, and the media's failure to call it to heel, is a good indication of that. While I personally was aware of both the ineffectual nature of Sarbox and the Byrne "jihad," that connection never occurred to me and that is a good point.

Lastly, I ran "sarbox" in Google News and got 73 hits, from the Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, Reuters and dozens of other leading news outlets. Why not get off that semantic obsession as it is a petty distinction and weakens your credibility.

I thought Jeannette Nolan was an editor so I was a little harsher than I would have been if I thought she was just another commenter. My pronouns got a little inconsistent, not being clear that I was talking about the article and the writer and not Ms. Nolan. No offense meant to Ms. Nolan. The comments on the article stand.

Sorry, Jeannette, but it doesn't wash. Perhaps you could blame the short sellers.

The first page of the article sets up how SOX hasn't changed anything. So evidence that SOX has indeed changed something and that someone has been caught due to SOX invalidates the first half of the article.

The "blame game" doesn't appear until the last third of the article. It reads as a secondary point and a weak one at that. Of course people who are caught blame others. Why do you possibly think that is news? Ask a street cop how often he's heard "It wasn't my fault!" A few people get away with it. Still not news. Saying it's a trend doesn't make it one. Examples that contradict the first 2/3 of your article don't help your point.

The point about changing the rules on short selling is interesting but undeveloped. What rules? Changed how? What is the effect? Who supported it?

And last but not least, Sarbox v. SOX. My evidence, which you can replicate on Google, shows that the best head to head comparison I can come up with shows about a 20 to 1 preference for the term SOX. Sarbox isn't an unused word, but clearly the more common term is SOX. (You can't query just "SOX" in Google because it is used in lots of other contexts)

It's like saying, "Marijuana, or maryjane as it's commonly known". It isn't untrue per se, but it's not at all useful either. (Yes I exaggerate. You can calibrate my metaphor more tightly if you want.)

The value of this article is that it places in perspective one of the great investor propaganda campaigns of recent times, the one promoted by Patrick Byrne of Overstock.com, and calls it for what it is.

Re the anonymous comment a few letters back -- apparently he or she didn't read the article very carefully, because Eagletech is presented as an example of scapegoating and not as a victory for Sarbanes Oxley.

In fact the Eagletech fraud predated Sarbanes Oxley. Neither Eagletech nor any other stock fraud scheme could be prevented by Sarbanes Oxley. However, such schemes are covered up by excusemongers and abetted by the media.

As for "sarbox," it has a half-million hits in Google and is a common term for Sarbanes Oxley.