How To Create More Jobs

TechDirt is spotlighting a call by Michael S. Malone, a columnist for ABCNews.com, for letting Silicon Valley create jobs once more. Malone argues that Sarbanes-Oxley and other attempts at accounting reform have done little to prevent fraud, but in fact have managed to kill off an entrepreneurship-venture capital-IPO cycle, centered in Silicon Valley, that has taken 30 years to nourish. Here's TechDirt: "...it's time to roll back SarbOx and other accounting rules that have acted more for theatrical purposes rather than any legitimate reason. Basically, all they've done is create new reporting requirements that do little to nothing to either prevent fraud or clarify a company's actual financial position (its intended purpose). I'm all for radical transparency in financial info, but that's not what has been done. Instead, we've made it burdensome to actually grow a company — and that doesn't help create jobs. It helps kill them."

Comments

Bypass the VCs and Code

[alain94040]

As I said in a previous comment, the current model of entrepreneurship is broken. VCs have left. In 2009, capital will be really hard to find. But there is a silver lining: capital is no longer necessary to start companies.

Again, fairsoftware.net among others is allowing people who don't have any money and don't have any VC buddies to start businesses together.

It will work because for software at least, a few smart developers can beat established software giants. Groundbreaking software can now be built quickly and cheaply by reusing a lot of existing code. You can thank the Open Source community's efforts for that.

I have a lot of respect for Mike Malone, the author of the article. He wrote one of my favorite books: "Going Public: Mips and the Entrepeneurial Dream". If you have any ounce of entrepreneurship in you, this book will reveal it. I'm sure it started vocations. But in today's piece, I disagree that Sarbanes-Oxley is the main problem, although it did reduce the number of IPOs.

The best advice I ever received for starting a company? Drop Powerpoint and your VC pitch. Write code instead.

Misses the point!

[Anonymous Coward]

SOX is for publicly traded companies, not startups. By the time they are publicly traded, the need for VC is generally in the distant past.

Re:Misses the point!

[folstaff]

Yes and no. If a non-publicly traded company wants to do business with a company that falls under SOX, they may be subject to additional requirements (like an audit of internal controls). SOX is much bigger than most people think and bad for business.

Re:Sick and tired of people ragging on mark-to-mar

[w3woody]

The problem is how does one value an asset that one is holding and that one has not sold yet, since the real value of an asset is what I could get for it on the open market.

Mark to market simply says that I need to value that asset at the current going rate for similar assets on the open market.

Now here is where the banks got screwed, and the fun part about this example is that it is currently going on today. Say I bought a 10-year treasury bill for $70 five years ago which will mature in 10 years at a face value of $100, earning around 4% annual interest. What is that asset worth?

Well, you could say that the asset's value is growing at 4% compounded interest, so the bond is worth $85 today.

WRONG!!!

Mark to market says that the asset is worth what I could get for it if I sold it today on the open market. Well, in the open market there is such a rush for cash liquidity that people have been dumping their bond holdings (including treasury bonds). And as we all learned in Economics 101, high supply, low demand translates to depressed prices.

Which means that if I tried to sell that $100 treasury on the bond market, I may only get $50 for it.

So, according to mark-to-market accounting, my $100 treasury bought five years ago for $70, whose face value if I simply computed it's value by compound interest would be $85 is actually only worth $50. And it means if I have the regulatory requirement to have a certain asset to liability ratio, my treasury bonds, which are completely and totally secure--the U.S. Government so far has not defaulted on a single treasury--is insufficiently "secure" for accounting purposes.

It's the primary reason why some people want to do away with mark-to-market rules: because many mortgage backed securities were trading at perhaps 10 cents to 20 cents on the dollar, even when the most pessimistic default rates in the mortgage market would cause the underlying assets (the houses themselves) which comprise the mortgage backed security to be worth maybe 85 cents or 90 cents to the dollar. This 9x deflation in the face value of the instrument was what killed AIG: they had no choice but to value the asset lower than the underlying homes would have been worth in the event 50% of the land mass of the United States was destroyed in a nuclear exchange with the Soviet Union.