
I have been considering of late the ethical implications of over-regulation. While over-regulation is difficult to define, let's presume for a moment that we could agree on what that would mean.
If the rules of play within a given arena, say securities regulations, are too complex to be followed by many practitioners, three problems arise.
First, and of greatest concern, is that participants may feel compelled to ignore certain rules simply because they can't understand and implement all of the required nuances. Having made the decision to disregard certain regulations, a psychological barrier has been breached--the practitioner is now choosing to break the rules. The threshold for rule-breaking becomes the ethical debate rather than whether or not to comply.
The second concern is that people of the highest moral character may elect not to participate in a field in which failure to meet the regulatory standard is likely to occur due to benign negligence. This adverse selection may leave only practitioners of less noble character to operate within the field.
The third concern is that the practice of ignoring certain rules because of the perceived complexity may be institutionalized by regulators who themselves lack the resources to enforce some nuances of the law, giving a false yet tacit approval to the practice of cavalierly violating "certain nuances" of the regulations. Or worse yet, regulators may end up spending too much of their limited resources prosecuting violations of relatively inconsequential rules while the segment of deliberate fraudsters artfully feign compliance and gain cover for their illegal activities.
I believe that as practitioners we have a genuine duty to comply with the regulations to which we are subject. Period.
That said, I also believe that less and simpler regulation is likely to yield more honorable business practices than more and complex regulation.
For instance, none of the recent Federal prosecutions in Enron or Worldcom relied on the laws the acts being prosecuted inspired and yet people are going to jail anyway. The laws that existed before Sarbanes Oxley were adequate. SOX may actually make things worse.
What do you think?







If I am a micro-cap today (under $200M), I would definitely be giving a lot of consideration to going private. The price of compliance today is simply too high on companies this size. By the time you add up all of the professional fees (acct, legal, etc.) for SOX and quarterly filings you could be talking 5-10% of revenues for a micro-cap. In addition, the Big 4 auditing firms really put the screws to these smaller companies for audit fees and the timing of the audit.
Best, Bconnery
Posted by: Bconnery | March 12, 2006 4:33 PM | Permalink to Comment