The paparazzi and some tabloid media might do some
really good after all if one looks at what a very solid and
well-run investment firm, who have understandably no
sympathy whatsoever for crooked bankers and their
practices, have to say.
It began in the USA that the paparazzi and some tabloid
media turned their attention to the overpaid scandal
bankers. The Huffington Post recently pointed this out
and linked to an article in the NYT about that subject:
Paparazzi turn cameras on CEO's
And meantime this idea has caught on in the UK as well
as the Guardian reports:
Rich pickings
It might be be a good thing if this interest of paparazzis
would extent to other countries as well. It's actually quite
likely for many reasons.
And from the tabloid interest in these fat cats we come to
Greycourt & Co., a financial services adviser with lots of
experience in the financial and money market business.
They know what they are talking about. While Greycourt
focus on rather wealthy clients, what they have to say and
the insight they give in the linked - to white paper here is
basically recommended reading for poor poets, a working
poor person just the same as this paper certainly is of
interest to not so poor persons.
They could not have been much more outspoken in the
context of a white paper, providing a proper insight into
the fraudulent practices that evolved over the years and
which are far more serious in their consequences, the
problems created than one might assume. One is getting
used too easily to this mess and softballing. Time is well
spent on this nineteen pages.
Greycourt & Co.:
The Financial Crisis and the Collapse of Ethical Behavior
After being properly briefed by Greycourt's paper the
new found interest of the paparazzis is probably seen a
bit different as well. As highly necessary, probably. Apart
from adding some colour to such dry stuff, maybe even a
bit of crime, sex and money. Their attention is really
necessary because it not just takes away some unresolved
frustration, they shed by coincidence light on matters
which are existential.
They might by coincidence be of some help to take a look
who is on the board of directors of publicly traded companies,
particularly banks. Not that this requires a lot of research.
Investors have been a bit negligent over the years, didn't care
much about those board members who clearly failed in their
duty to excerise their control, their obligation of oversight
of what is going in a bank, for instance.
Here the general description by Wikipedia of the "boards",
their various funtions, what they are supposed to be there
for.
Right now the bonuses are the outrage, the big themes.
That's just part of the story. Who was responsible for these
bonuses? The "boards". And not just that, they were also
great in their failure to exercise control when things got
- and still deteriorate further. Right now "everybody" on
these boards, including politicians, excel with "didn't know",
"nobody knew, could have seen it coming" and so forth. And
so those board members in banks have the same brilliant
explanation.
And this why a bit tabloid - like attention would shed light
into a corner hitherto unfortunately neglected. If for instance
some such media would have the idea to come up with names
and faces, placating them as the ones responsible for whatever
this would be the spanner in the works. All magic and
mysterious power all too often ascribed would vanish like
morning mist in sunlight.
Let's also hope that those tabloid media digging in such
matters are not regarding people in general just as stupid.
Being not familiar with one or the other subject does not
mean a person is stupid per se. They could just as well
provide some upgrading, some learning, for the general
public.
As we see, upgrading on some basci corparate law and
structure, to name just one theme, is basically damn easy,
no big deal at
all.
No comments:
Post a Comment