[quote=SK in CV]
I never asserted that we would not find new information. Only that if the audit was consistent with what are normally called “audits”, then there would be little if any new information. Traditional audits have already been done. So the scope has to be redirected. [/quote]
I agree here. I don’t really have an opinion on this idea of an independent audit for the Fed. It certainly can’t hurt, I suppose. But I don’t think a lot of new *valuable* information is going to be revealed. But if it makes the public feel less bad about the situation, then it’s probably a good idea. But this gets back to the old saw that, “the only way for three people to keep a secret is for two of them to get killed.” I doubt there will be any bombshells.
As disturbing as this may sound, while audits are helpful, they are FAR far from perfect. In fact, not even in the ballpark. Having sat on the boards of companies that have been audited (and knowing the gory details of what really goes on beneath the numbers), I am very skeptical of even audited financial statements. Generically, I don’t trust the financial statements of any company that I’m not intimately involved with (and even those need to be adjusted for reality), which is why I prefer private to public companies (the former are generally not trying as hard to hide the truth).
Anyhow, audits are generally a good thing, but they are quite limited in what they reveal. Expect the Fed’s audit to be the same.
