
With that introduction, I want to add a new verse to my thinking about the impact of excess regulation.
Granting me my conclusion based on that simplistic evidence, among the long run impacts will be an increase in the divide between rich and poor. This increasing divide comes about because privately placed investments are not accessible to those who cannot practically or legal participate. As investment options for the average investor become narrower, especially as compared to alternative investments available to the wealthy, the gap between wealthy and average American investors will grow.
The vast middle class in America has been, I believe, the engine for economic growth not just here in the U.S., but globally. I am concerned that if we make it more difficult for the middle class to succeed, we slow the engine for economic growth.
These issues are far more complex than this single factor, but I would argue that regulation will, at the margin, limit investment opportunities for average investors and increase them for the wealthy. Alone, this won't bring about the demise of the middle class, but some would argue that there are plenty of other pressures on the middle class.
So, what do you think?








I assume many of these companies are going private because of the cost associated with compliance. What is the difference in accounting costs before and after Sarbanes-Oxley?
With more companies going private, what is the likelyhood of new equity firms being created? Much like how we have mutual funds now, I believe it is possible to create an equity firm for the small investor. I think they could function much the same way as REITs.
Posted by: Steven Ting | November 20, 2006 9:54 AM | Permalink to Comment