REMARKS
                                
                               BY
                                
                     CHAIRMAN ARTHUR LEVITT
                                
                                
               SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                                
                                
                                
                                
                       THE "NUMBERS GAME"
                                
                                
                                
                                
                NYU CENTER FOR LAW AND BUSINESS,
                                
                         NEW YORK, N.Y.
                                
                                
                                
                       SEPTEMBER 28, 1998
     Thank you very much.  Dean Daly, Dean Sexton and to everyone
gathered this evening, thank you for welcoming me tonight.  I am
honored to be here on such an auspicious evening for both NYU and
Bill Allen.

     The creation of the Center for Law and Business recognizes
an important truth: we cannot continue to view the worlds of
business and law as parallel but separate universes.  And NYU
could not have selected a more qualified or thoughtful individual
than Bill as its first director.  His leadership of the Delaware
Court of Chancery -- acknowledged as the nation's most
influential arbiter of corporate law -- confirmed his reputation
as a great thinker who effortlessly bridges the worlds of law and
business.  I've heard from friends on Wall Street that it's a far
less stressful experience to hear Bill lecture in front of a
classroom than from his former seat on the bench.

     Seven months ago, I expressed concerns about selective
disclosure.  Through conference calls or embargoed press
releases, analysts and institutional investors often hear about
material news before it is made public.  In the interval, there
is a great deal of unusual trading. The practice had been going
on for a long time.  And, while everyone was aware of it, and
most were extremely uncomfortable with it, few spoke out.  As the
investor's advocate, the SEC did and we will continue to do so.

     Well, today, I'd like to talk to you about another
widespread, but too little-challenged custom: earnings
management.  This process has evolved over the years into what
can best be characterized as a game among market participants.  A
game that, if not addressed soon, will have adverse consequences
for America's financial reporting system.  A game that runs
counter to the very principles behind our market's strength and
success.

     Increasingly, I have become concerned that the motivation to
meet Wall Street earnings expectations may be overriding common
sense business practices.  Too many corporate managers, auditors,
and analysts are participants in a game of nods and winks.  In
the zeal to satisfy consensus earnings estimates and project a
smooth earnings path, wishful thinking may be winning the day
over faithful representation.

     As a result, I fear that we are witnessing an erosion in the
quality of earnings, and therefore, the quality of financial
reporting.  Managing may be giving way to manipulation; Integrity
may be losing out to illusion.

     Many in corporate America are just as frustrated and
concerned about this trend as we, at the SEC, are.  They know how
difficult it is to hold the line on good practices when their
competitors operate in the gray area between legitimacy and
outright fraud.

     A gray area where the accounting is being perverted; where
managers are cutting corners; and, where earnings reports reflect
the desires of management rather than the underlying financial
performance of the company.

     Tonight, I want to talk about why integrity in financial
reporting is under stress and explore five of the more common
accounting gimmicks we've been seeing. Finally, I will outline a
framework for a financial community response to this situation.

     This necessary response involves improving both our
accounting and disclosure rules, as well as the oversight and
function of outside auditors and board audit committees.  I am
also calling upon a broad spectrum of capital market
participants, from corporate management to Wall Street analysts
to investors, to stand together and re-energize the touchstone of
our financial reporting system: transparency and comparability.

     This is a financial community problem.  It can't be solved
by a government mandate: it demands a financial community
response.

THE ROLE OF FINANCIAL REPORTING IN OUR ECONOMY

     Today, America's capital markets are the envy of the world.
Our efficiency, liquidity and resiliency stand second to none.
Our position, no doubt, has benefited from the opportunity and
potential of the global economy. At the same time, however, this
increasing interconnectedness has made us more susceptible to
economic and financial weakness half a world away.

     The significance of transparent, timely and reliable
financial statements and its importance to investor protection
has never been more apparent. The current financial situations in
Asia and Russia are stark examples of this new reality. These
markets are learning a painful lesson taught many times before:
investors panic as a result of unexpected or unquantifiable bad
news.

     If a company fails to provide meaningful disclosure to
investors about where it has been, where it is and where it is
going, a damaging pattern ensues.  The bond between shareholders
and the company is shaken; investors grow anxious; prices
fluctuate for no discernible reasons; and the trust that is the
bedrock of our capital markets is severely tested.

THE PRESSURE TO "MAKE YOUR NUMBERS"

     While the problem of earnings management is not new, it has
swelled in a market that is unforgiving of companies that miss
their estimates.  I recently read of one major U.S. company, that
failed to meet its so-called "numbers" by one penny, and lost
more than six percent of its stock value in one day.

     I believe that almost everyone in the financial community
shares responsibility for fostering a climate in which earnings
management is on the rise and the quality of financial reporting
is on the decline. Corporate management isn't operating in a
vacuum.  In fact, the different pressures and expectations placed
by, and on, various participants in the financial community
appear to be almost self-perpetuating.

     This is the pattern earnings management creates: companies
try to meet or beat Wall Street earnings projections in order to
grow market capitalization and increase the value of stock
options.  Their ability to do this depends on achieving the
earnings expectations of analysts.  And analysts seek constant
guidance from companies to frame those expectations. Auditors,
who want to retain their clients, are under pressure not to stand
in the way.

ACCOUNTING HOCUS-POCUS

     Our accounting principles weren't meant to be a
straitjacket. Accountants are wise enough to know they cannot
anticipate every business structure, or every new and innovative
transaction, so they develop principles that allow for
flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances. That's why the
highest standards of objectivity, integrity and judgment can't be
the exception.  They must be the rule.

     Flexibility in accounting allows it to keep pace with
business innovations.  Abuses such as earnings management occur
when people exploit this pliancy. Trickery is employed to obscure
actual financial volatility.  This, in turn, masks the true
consequences of management's decisions. These practices aren't
limited to smaller companies struggling to gain investor
interest. It's also happening in companies whose products we know
and admire.

     So what are these illusions? Five of the more popular ones I
want to discuss today are "big bath" restructuring charges,
creative acquisition accounting, "cookie jar reserves,"
"immaterial" misapplications of accounting principles, and the
premature recognition of revenue.

"Big Bath" Charges

     Let me first deal with "Big Bath" restructuring charges.

     Companies remain competitive by regularly assessing the
efficiency and profitability of their operations.  Problems
arise, however, when we see large charges associated with
companies restructuring.  These charges help companies "clean up"
their balance sheet -- giving them a so-called "big bath."

     Why are companies tempted to overstate these charges?  When
earnings take a major hit, the theory goes Wall Street will look
beyond a one-time loss and focus only on future earnings.

     And if these charges are conservatively estimated with a
little extra cushioning, that so-called conservative estimate is
miraculously reborn as income when estimates change or future
earnings fall short.

     When a company decides to restructure, management and
employees, investors and creditors, customers and suppliers all
want to understand the expected effects.  We need, of course, to
ensure that financial reporting provides this information.  But
this should not lead to flushing all the associated costs -- and
maybe a little extra -- through the financial statements.

Creative Acquisition Accounting

     Let me turn now to the second gimmick.

     In recent years, whole industries have been remade through
consolidations, acquisitions and spin-offs.  Some acquirers,
particularly those using stock as an acquisition currency, have
used this environment as an opportunity to engage in another form
of "creative" accounting.  I call it "merger magic."

     I am not talking tonight about the pooling versus purchase
problem.  Some companies have no choice but to use purchase
accounting -- which can result in lower future earnings.  But
that's a result some companies are unwilling to tolerate.

     So what do they do?  They classify an ever-growing portion
of the acquisition price as "in-process" Research and
Development, so -- you guessed it -- the amount can be written
off in a "one-time" charge -- removing any future earnings drag.
Equally troubling is the creation of large liabilities for future
operating expenses to protect future earnings -- all under the
mask of an acquisition.

Miscellaneous "Cookie Jar Reserves"

     A third illusion played by some companies is using
unrealistic assumptions to estimate liabilities for such items as
sales returns, loan losses or warranty costs.  In doing so, they
stash accruals in cookie jars during the good times and reach
into them when needed in the bad times.

     I'm reminded of one U.S. company who took a large one-time
loss to earnings to reimburse franchisees for equipment. That
equipment, however, which included literally the kitchen sink,
had yet to be bought.  And, at the same time, they announced that
future earnings would grow an impressive 15 percent per year.

 "Materiality"

     Let me turn now to the fourth gimmick -- the abuse of
materiality -- a word that captures the attention of both
attorneys and accountants.  Materiality is another way we build
flexibility into financial reporting.  Using the logic of
diminishing returns, some items may be so insignificant that they
are not worth measuring and reporting with exact precision.

     But some companies misuse the concept of materiality. They
intentionally record errors within a defined percentage ceiling.
They then try to excuse that fib by arguing that the effect on
the bottom line is too small to matter.  If that's the case, why
do they work so hard to create these errors?  Maybe because the
effect can matter, especially if it picks up that last penny of
the consensus estimate. When either management or the outside
auditors are questioned about these clear violations of GAAP,
they answer sheepishly ......."It doesn't matter.  It's
immaterial."

     In markets where missing an earnings projection by a penny
can result in a loss of millions of dollars in market
capitalization, I have a hard time accepting that some of these
so-called non-events simply don't matter.

Revenue Recognition

     Lastly, companies try to boost earnings by manipulating the
recognition of revenue. Think about a bottle of fine wine.  You
wouldn't pop the cork on that bottle before it was ready.  But
some companies are doing this with their revenue -- recognizing
it before a sale is complete, before the product is delivered to
a customer, or at a time when the customer still has options to
terminate, void or delay the sale.

ACTION PLAN

     Since U.S. capital market supremacy is based on the
reliability and transparency of financial statements, this is a
financial community problem that calls for timely financial
community action.

     Therefore, I am calling for immediate and coordinated
action:  technical rule changes by the regulators and standard
setters to improve the transparency of financial statements;
enhanced oversight of the financial reporting process by those
entrusted as the shareholders' guardians; and nothing less than a
fundamental cultural change on the part of corporate management
as well as the whole financial community.

     This action plan represents a cooperative public-private
sector effort.  It is essential that we work together to assure
credibility and transparency.  Our nine-point program calls for
both regulators and the regulated to not only maintain, but
increase public confidence which has made our markets the envy of
the world.  I believe this problem calls for immediate action
that includes the following specific steps:

Improving the Accounting Framework

       First, I have instructed the SEC staff to require well-
detailed disclosures about the impact of changes in accounting
assumptions.  This should include a supplement to the financial
statement showing beginning and ending balances as well as
activity in between, including any adjustments. This will, I
believe, enable the market to better understand the nature and
effects of the restructuring liabilities and other loss accruals.

     Second, we are challenging the profession, through the
AICPA, to clarify the ground rules for auditing of purchased R&D.
We also are requesting that they augment existing guidance on
restructurings, large acquisition write-offs, and revenue
recognition practices.  It's time for the accounting profession
to better qualify for auditors what's acceptable and what's not.



     Third, I reject the notion that the concept of materiality
can be used to excuse deliberate misstatements of performance.  I
know of one Fortune 500 company who had recorded a significant
accounting error, and whose auditors told them so. But they still
used a materiality ceiling of six percent earnings to justify the
error.  I have asked the SEC staff  to focus on this problem and
publish guidance that emphasizes the need to consider
qualitative, not just quantitative factors of earnings.
Materiality is not a bright line cutoff of three or five percent.
It requires consideration of all relevant factors that could
impact an investor's decision.

     Fourth, SEC staff will immediately consider interpretive
accounting guidance on the do's and don'ts of revenue
recognition.  The staff will also determine whether recently
published standards for the software industry can be applied to
other service companies.

     Fifth, I am asking private sector standard setters to take
action where current standards and guidance are inadequate. I
encourage a prompt resolution of the FASB's projects, currently
underway, that should bring greater clarity to the definition of
a liability.

     Sixth, the SEC's review and enforcement teams will reinforce
these regulatory initiatives.  We will formally target reviews of
public companies that announce restructuring liability reserves,
major write-offs or other practices that appear to manage
earnings. Likewise, our enforcement team will continue to root
out and aggressively act on abuses of the financial reporting
process.

Improved Outside Auditing in the Financial Reporting Process

     Seventh, I don't think it should surprise anyone here that
recent headlines of accounting failures have led some people to
question the thoroughness of audits. I need not remind auditors
they are the public's watchdog in the financial reporting
process.  We rely on auditors to put something like the good
housekeeping seal of approval on the information investors
receive.  The integrity of that information must take priority
over a desire for cost efficiencies or competitive advantage in
the audit process. High quality auditing requires well-trained,
well-focused and well-supervised auditors.

     As I look at some of the failures today, I can't help but
wonder if the staff in the trenches of the profession have the
training and supervision they need to ensure that audits are
being done right.  We cannot permit thorough audits to be
sacrificed for re-engineered approaches that are efficient, but
less effective.  I have just proposed that the Public Oversight
Board form a group of all the major constituencies to review the
way audits are performed and assess the impact of recent trends
on the public interest.







Strengthening the Audit Committee Process

     And, finally, qualified, committed, independent and tough-
minded audit committees represent the most reliable guardians of
the public interest.  Sadly, stories abound of audit committees
whose members lack expertise in the basic principles of financial
reporting as well as the mandate to ask probing questions.  In
fact, I've heard of one audit committee that convenes only twice
a year before the regular board meeting for 15 minutes and whose
duties are limited to a perfunctory presentation.

     Compare that situation with the audit committee which meets
twelve times a year before each board meeting; where every member
has a financial background; where there are no personal ties to
the chairman or the company; where they have their own advisers;
where they ask tough questions of management and outside
auditors; and where, ultimately, the investor interest is being
served.

     The SEC stands ready to take appropriate action if that
interest is not protected.  But, a private sector response that
empowers audit committees and obviates the need for public sector
dictates seems the wisest choice.  I am pleased to announce that
the financial community has agreed to accept this challenge.

     As part eight of this comprehensive effort to address
earnings management, the New York Stock Exchange and the National
Association of Securities Dealers have agreed to sponsor a "blue-
ribbon" panel to be headed by John Whitehead, former Deputy
Secretary of State and retired senior partner of Goldman, Sachs,
and Ira Millstein, a lawyer and noted corporate governance
expert.  Within the next 90 days, this distinguished group will
develop a series of far-ranging recommendations intended to
empower audit committees and function as the ultimate guardian of
investor interests and corporate accountability.  They are going
to examine how we can get the right people to do the right things
and ask the right questions.

Need for a Cultural Change

     Finally, I'm challenging corporate management and Wall
Street to re-examine our current environment.  I believe we need
to embrace nothing less than a cultural change.  For corporate
managers, remember, the integrity of the numbers in the financial
reporting system is directly related to the long-term interests
of a corporation.  While the temptations are great, and the
pressures strong, illusions in numbers are only that --
ephemeral, and ultimately self-destructive.

     To Wall Street, I say, look beyond the latest quarter.
Punish those who rely on deception, rather than the practice of
openness and transparency.

CONCLUSION

     Some may conclude that this debate is nothing more than an
argument over numbers and legalistic terms.  I couldn't disagree
more.

     Numbers in the abstract are just that -- numbers.  But
relying on the numbers in a financial report are livelihoods,
interests and ultimately, stories: a single mother who works two
jobs so she can save enough to give her kids a good education; a
father who labored at the same company for his entire adult life
and now just wants to enjoy time with his grandchildren; a young
couple who dreams of starting their own business. These are the
stories of American investors.

     Our mandate and our obligations are clear.  We must
rededicate ourselves to a fundamental principle: markets exist
through the grace of investors.

     Today, American markets enjoy the confidence of the world.
How many half-truths, and how much accounting sleight-of-hand,
will it take to tarnish that faith?

     As a former businessman, I experienced all kinds of markets,
dealt with a variety of trends, fads, fears, and irrational
exuberances.  I learned that some habits die hard.  But, more
than anything else, I learned that progress doesn't happen
overnight and it's not sustained through short cuts or
obfuscation.  It's induced, rather, by asking hard questions and
accepting difficult answers.

     For the sake of our markets; for the sake of a globalized
economy which depends so much on the reliability of America's
financial system; for the sake of investors; and for the sake of
a larger commitment not only to each other, but to ourselves, I
ask that we join together to
reinforce the values that have guided our capital markets to
unparalleled supremacy.  Together, through vigilance and trust, I
know, we can succeed.

Thank you.