Why SEC-mandated disclosure of ties to terrorist states is good
According to the Financial Times, "Companies doing business in "terrorist-sponsoring states" could once again have their names under scrutiny under a controversial plan being revived by the Securities and Exchange Commission."
In June, the SEC sparked controversy by posting the names of companies that did business with Iran, Sudan, Syria, North Korea, and Cuba. The agency quickly removed the list amid complaints from companies, who complained that the SEC didn't research the materiality of the connections.
Now the SEC is considering putting the list back up, and rightfully so. This is all about disclosure and transparency: if investors don't feel that the connections are material, they can ignore the list. But there are people who want to know whether the companies they're investing in have ties to terrorist states, and the SEC has a role in making information available to investors who request it.
More information for investors is always a good thing and if companies are embarrassed about showing up on the list, maybe they should reconsider their ties to these countries.
In June, the SEC sparked controversy by posting the names of companies that did business with Iran, Sudan, Syria, North Korea, and Cuba. The agency quickly removed the list amid complaints from companies, who complained that the SEC didn't research the materiality of the connections.
Now the SEC is considering putting the list back up, and rightfully so. This is all about disclosure and transparency: if investors don't feel that the connections are material, they can ignore the list. But there are people who want to know whether the companies they're investing in have ties to terrorist states, and the SEC has a role in making information available to investors who request it.
More information for investors is always a good thing and if companies are embarrassed about showing up on the list, maybe they should reconsider their ties to these countries.










