More Questions About Webster
BDO Seidman, the accounting firm fired by U.S. Technologies, has released documents purporting to show that William Webster fired the firm after it had warned him about financial problems at U.S. Technologies. Webster maintains that he has no recollection of being told about accounting problems prior to firing Seidman, claiming that the firm was fired for being too costly and taking too long on audits. Edited notes released by Seidman indicate that Webster was a participant in a call in which Seidman discussed three key issues at the company, one of which was "Recording significant transactions on a timely basis."
President Bush has urged us to hold off on judgment and wait for the investigation to be completed. This is the absolute wrong tack to take, although I fear it presages a doomed future for any meaningful accounting reform. The purpose of the accounting oversight board is to help restore investor confidence, not to protect Webster's reputation. So many questions about his fitness to run this board have arisen that the need for him to resign to protect the ultimate goal of the board should be clear. The lawsuit filed by Seidman against Webster for making "false and misleading statements" regarding its dismissal will eventually either restore Webster's reputation or damage it further. If swift, assertive action is not taken regarding the accounting oversight board is not taken, however, what will restore the damage to its credibility?
Comments
in two words, well, DUH! Anybody that thinks that Bush wants a real watchdog is kidding themselves.
This SHOULD be really simple. That Biggs or Riggs person, the one that investor groups were pushing to head the oversight board, the guy that has been calling for more oversight and for better accounting, put him in today.
But he might actually enforce the law on Wall Street, and that isn't the goal here, now is it?
Posted by: freak | November 8, 2002 02:04 PM