. >> we have the same conversation when they passed sarbanes-oxley. all the companies will leave the united states because of the rules. it is all this media mayhem and everybody stays put. it is more expensive to move your headquarters. i get that some people are leaving. >> you are wrong, tracy. i'm on the board of a new york stock exchange company and they are thinking about doing just that, leaving the united states because of the taxes and sarbanes-oxley which cost this company $4 million a year to comply with sarbanes-oxley. they don't have to do it. they go somewhere else. >> i get that. but i think that when they do like a cost analysis from the talent they are going to lose, from just the cost of moving everything over there they will find at the end of the day this is the place to be. terry: adding to this, is this perhaps 8% surcharge on companies who don't provide healthcare for employees? >> absolutely. in a world full of globalization we are competing just like ireland, singapore, like the cayman islands to attract profit-seeking pools o

this could be sarbanes oxley redone. >> i agree. it's this great food fight these bureaucrats are fighting one another. i think that's wonderful. when the president proposed an idea of oober regulator, it's like jump ball and ambitious and throwing elbows and head butts and sheila bair and tim geithner. i think it's wonderful. remember stockdale in the 1992 election, he kept saying gridlock, gridlock. >> that's the watch word today, gridlock. i'm trying to persuade steve moore gridlock is totally bullish, i can't even get a smile. there it is, he nodded to me. >> e what did he buy? i heard he sold, what did he buy. >> i don't think he bought anything, just cash. >> under the mattress. >> bob, you've been in the bull camp, having a good year. what are the best places to get in. i maintain it's not too late to get in and we're going to 1200. i know i'm a bull. if you buy the bullish case and summer rally continues with various pullbacks, what do you do? >> i just bought steve moore's portfolio, so i'm really happy. i like two sectors,

it attacks agait cybe attacks andlows the clits to comply with sarbanes oxley and otr government relations. the cyber story is me fun d re interesting as well as the analyst who baks out the newslett newsletter the street.kopp. president obamas appointing a cyber cz. there's a need for this state and national levels where fore cyber spies e able to get classified data not to mentn the grid and the 800 rerds for the inia pament of health. a lot of czars here. starting to feel a little lik russia. i ain't no dolpn. the hubbub surroundinghe cyberattacks could easily cae the government to suprt n regular lags supporting companies th are in the power control stems to ramp uphe cyber spenng which would lead to major newbusinesses for but they'reogging cputer activity for regulatory purposes and helping the clients make sure they don break any rules. that makes aght a play in government relation, talk about a sular owth trend, something we're sure toee with the regution-happy democratic president and democratic congress. boring stuff. but when the government mandates more companies keep more elec

now, everyone has to play along, çsort of like sarbanes-oxley tt was supposed to correct the sins of are you saying the end result is the government steps out, or the government just provides guidelines, where the government just leaves? >> graig question -- or the government just bleeds? >> gerut question -- great question -- or the government just leaves. >> great question. this will divide corporate goals against corporate pay. we want these companies to do well and make money. we want them to pay the taxpayer back. you do not do that with this. çthis could take away sales compensation for people. we want them to grow, make money, pay the system back. neil: good seeing you again. >> nice seeing you, neil. neil: here is a group that will not have to worry about pay caps or other things, lawyers. congress is even looking at sort of getting back into an unrelated bill. since 1990, lawyers don't $81 billion to political parties, democrats getting 73% of that -- lawyers donating $81 billion. these are staggering sums. >> they are, and they are even more impressive in this current poli

it protects against cybyb atcks, and ananalallo the clients to comply with sarbanes oxley anand heher government r rululatns. the cyber r sty y more fun and more interesting as wellll athth analalyswhwho eaks out the newsletter, the ststre.c.com president oboba a isppointing a cycybeczcz. there's s a eded f this at state annational levels where foigigcyber spies are able t to access classisifi d datnot to mention e grid and the 800 recordsds f the virginia d deptmtmenof healthth a lot of c cza h her startingngo o fe a little like ssss. i ain'n't d dolin. the huhuubub srounding the cyberattacks couldldasasilcause the governmentnto o suort new regulation supuppoining companans s th are in the power grgr, water supply, air trtrafc control systememtoto rp up the cybeber enenng which would lead to major new businessesefofor arcsight. t they're logging compmput activity for r rululaty purposes and d heininthe clients make re they don't break ananrurule i like that. thatat mesesrcsight a play in vernment regulation, t tk k about a seselalar owth trend, sosomeininwe're sure to see with the e

bit of time d making an enghtened decision with a bit of hindsight because i think we saw in sarbanes-oxley in 2002 a quick rush for companies to report iormation and i thi e result o that has en pretty nic >> charlie: ty should wait and the should think carefully abt what they're going to do. they shouldn't hav a sense of urgency aboureform. >> therehould be an urgency but i don'think wehould necearily have a complete plan in place less tha a yearince the lehman blow . but there is no doubt in my mind that there neeto be major reform and i don't think yone -- >> charl: what would that major reform entai >> well, the capital risks taken by banks. is actually is a hidden threat of the banks. that's not being discuss the much right now. that threat is that the regulatorsill say hey, you got this much capital, you know, our model going forward is that you're going to have t have more capital on reserve. there cod be internional regulations thatuggest that. so icould be to the bks that they just ha to squirrel more away. they have to have the compensation system. i don't know if you want a gove

before you applaud their good intentions, i have two words for you, sarbane oxley.hat post enron crackdown that passed congress in 48 hours, it contained questionable measures that languished in congress unapproved for five years and businesses are still hurting from it. small companies spend a lot of their profit growth on new accountants, big companies take their new stock listings to exchanges overseas and sarbanesoxley did nothing to stop the new countdown, one congress is using for a new round of photo ops. it's photo overtime. we start with this picture, the got ya shown around the world. it appears to show president obama eyeing the derriere of a 16-year-old. it seems niclolas sarkozy is getting an eyul aswell. jasowith the "huffington post" and tika is the founder of tycoon publications, what do you think. >> i think the president is getting a bum rap. his picture was taken out of context. when you look at the video, it's a very different image than the photograph, the still photograph really has niclolas sarkozy, th president of france sort of staring at th

how can we have these levels of fiction in financials after sarbanes oxley? do people get away with this? i'm taking on a special mission tonight, it is a hurtful one, a socially suicidal one. i'm about to get myself banned from every single good party in new york metro area. >> don't get mad, get even. more "mad money," catch cramer at 6:00 and 11:00 eastern on cnbc. ♪ ♪ i got troubles, oh ♪ but not today ♪ 'cause they're gonna wash away ♪ ♪ they're gonna wash away ♪ ♪ ♪ they're gonna wash away ♪ this old heart ♪ gonna take them away [ quacks ] >>> let me give you three words. three words that are sure to put any audience, even one made up of my own 64-year-old demographic to sleep. "retirement, 401(k), and i.r.a." we think of these things as the boring part of investing but let there be no doubt. when it comes to managing your own money, nothing is more important than making sure you've got enough dough to retire. young people, that may seem far off. i feel like i was 20 just yesterday though. believe me. you don't want to spend your golden years eating cat

a little too early to read are we going to get another sarbanes-oxley or are we going to have somethinghat's a little more business-friendly coming out here? >> very, very important point. david, what do you think about that? we've got new ragry reform on the table from the obama administration. how's that going to impact the ipos? >> i think there's going to be a slight impact, but as soon as we get past this rough patch, whatever it might be, and addressing the point duncan brought out, the foreign issuance is goek to the scales moving down in their favor. once the u.s. market gets straightened out you won't hear about the foreign markets it will be all u.s. >> like you were saying about the pent-up demand here i can tell from you my travels overseas there is plenty of demand overseas. there's a lot of companies ready to go. >> absolutely. ipos and secondaries. >> we'll leave it there. great to have you on the program, david. thanks so much. have a nice weekend. david menlow, president ipo financial.com. up next today's under the radar stocks, check out some of the days big movers but

and i want to ask you, is this another sarbanes oxley that will completely stifle the innovation, the entrepreneurcia. >> i think that exists, we don't know the financial direction this is going to take, but a lot like many other programs, whether it's health care or what not, the intentions and the need for something is painfully obvious. but the road to getting there, and what we end up with when we arrive there has huge amounts of unintended consequences that need to be considered, and i still think for regulatory standpoint, the biggest story of the day in terms of the chatter in the arenas that i hang out was the story cnbc broke earlier about sheila bair saying what's off balance sheet should be considered on balance sheet. i think the logic in that is at the up most he said of why we need some form of a stronger reform policy, and we have to be careful. you know, the original glass-steagall was written in very simple words and wasn't that long. >> can you just walk through that for a minute? this is regarding banks, and they list a lot of loans, loans that are being worked out

be enormously interesting with the hillary, fec, fitness case in -- finance case in september, sarbanes-oxley, the things i'm watching more closely are united states vs. stevens which is a case about a congressional statute that's been struck down that prohibits the commercial sale of these really horrific videos about cruelty to animals and a case that we have a petition up for now called international humanitarian project vs. holder which is about the material support statute parts of which have been struck down by the ninth circuit as unconstitutional violations of free speech. this is a criminal law that prohibits material support against terrorism. it's of enormous important to the departments that the court take this and get it right. >> in addition to some of these ones i think neal mentioned one that i'm really interested in which is this constitutionality of the accounting oversight board. i think the court tends to say very interesting things whenever it gets into these questions that deal with the structure of government, and i think this will be more of the more interesting ones f

for example the sarbanes-oxley eckberg webb's we have seen improvement in the markets the toward newiance cost to the detriment of many small and medium-sized businesses. in another example last congress we enacted a law in response to lead paint on toys. the paint violated an existing standard but what was the compliance problem rather than a deficience standard problem that led to numerous cots, new mandates that but many small and medium-sized business-- businesses out of business because the cost was too high without any corresponding increase in safety. this is not to say weaknesses in our system don't exist. they obviously and clearly to. the failure of so many financial institutions and the ongoing problem of foreclosures on mortgages, some are worse never should have taken out are evidence of that. if the bailout of banks and firms really necessary to save the financial system something clearly needs to be done to address the systematical is. fraud and deception by both lenders and far worse than the mortgage market with ran rampant. the fbi reported an increase in fraud by m

we were told we were losing business to great britain and we should cut back on sarbanes-oxley becausele were going to england. today i read from an article from a couple of weeks ago, the prime minister of england says they are going to adopt plans forcing banks to hold back half of all bonuses for five years and the conservative opposition is critical because it's not mandatory. we have been in conversations with the european union, the united kingdom, canada and others. in fact, american salaries, american compensations have been much higher system of no, there is no price control. no there's no wage control. no it is not a problem for international competition. by the way, as to every institution, every credit union, you heard that rhetoric, the bill exempts any institution with less than $1 billion in assets. it gives the s.e.c. the authority to raise that so there's even les. the republican party has reluctantly been dragged by events, reality sometimes has an impact to support a watered down version of say on pay. say on pay says the shareholders can vote and express their opini

are you worried at all about kind of a sarbanes oxley snap back effect by congress where they just --as a result, make it more difficult in the financial sector to do the job that they need to do? >> yeah. jim, i think you can't demonize wall street and you can't demonize profits or our free enterprise system. you know, really, a lot of what's, proposed is almost like profits are bad. you know, i hope, and i think the federal reserve and most investors on main street hope our corporations are profitable and they then reinvest that. you know f they lose money, we all lose. >> is the goal transparency, is that -- i mean, that to me seems to be the number one goal. can we make this more transparent. >> well, you know, you need transparency in disclosures. you know, there are -- contracts are so complicated. i'm talking about contract, consumer contracts, mortgages and things of that nature. where you have to really -- i guess the complex thing about transparency is when you deal with the fed. you know, i'm forgiving the gao audit authority, particularly when they start bailing out indivi

for example the sarbanes-oxley eckberg webb's we have seen improvement in the markets the toward new compliance cost to the detriment of many small and medium-sized businesses. in another example last congress we enacted a law in response to lead paint on toys. the paint violated an existing standard but what was the compliance problem rather than a deficience standard problem that led to numerous cots, new mandates that but many small and medium-sized business-- businesses out of business because the cost was too high without any corresponding increase in safety. this is not to say weaknesses in our system don't exist. they obviously and clearly to. the failure of so many financial institutions and the ongoing problem of foreclosures on mortgages, some are worse never should have taken out are evidence of that. if the bailout of banks and firms really necessary to save the financial system something clearly needs to be done to address the systematical is. fraud and deception by both lenders and far worse than the mortgage market with ran rampant. the fbi reported an increase in frau

sarbanes-oxley made that a priority when that was passed. it was difficult, it was painful, and it was expensive. but most of those plikely held companies will tell you, after they put the new controls in place, their financial statements are better, their decisions are bert. the same would apply to the department of defense if they were to make this a priority. it has to be a priority of the secretary of defense, the authorization committee. mr. murtha: can the gentleman take yes for an answer? mr. mr. conaway: i did. why did you turn the microphone off? i did take yes for an answer, thank you very much. the importance of financial statement auditing is important and i yield back. the chair: does any member seek time in opposition? if not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now now in order to consider amendment number three, printed in part a of house report 111-32 -- 111-233. for wh

we were told we were losing business to great britain and we should cut back on sarbanes-oxley because people were going to england. today i read from an article from a couple of weeks ago, the prime minister of england says they are going to adopt plans forcing banks to hold back half of all bonuses for five years and the conservative opposition is critical because it's not mandatory. we have been in conversations with the european union, the united kingdom, canada and others. in fact, american salaries, american compensations have been much higher system of no, there is no price control. no there's no wage control. no it is not a problem for international competition. by the way, as to every institution, every credit union, you heard that rhetoric, the bill exempts any institution with less than $1 billion in assets. it gives the s.e.c. the authority to raise that so there's even les. the republican party has reluctantly been dragged by events, reality sometimes has an impact to support a watered down version of say on pay. say on pay says the shareholders can vote and express their