Quote

I have three very simple principles. I don't like conflicts of interest; they should be eliminated or disclosed. I believe in transparency, that people have to really not just know but understand what they're buying and selling. And that you have to have enough capital to back up your promises.

Conflicts of interest' arise when you're not - when you're sneaky about it, when you're shady about it, when you're not transparent about it. If you tell everyone, 'Here's what's going on. Here's the process; here are the people that are playing a role' - that's being transparent.

I would draw a really big distinction between competition, or potential competition, and a conflict of interest. A conflict of interest implies wrongdoing, whereas competition is really healthy.

Sometimes I have so many financial conflicts of interest that I can't even keep them straight.

If I, taking care of everyone's interests, also take care of my own, you can't talk about a conflict of interest.

Many say an art dealer running a museum is a 'conflict of interest.' But maybe the art world has lived an artificial or unintentional lie all of these years when it comes to conflicts of interest.

Markets work when people can evaluate the prices and risks of different products, then pick the ones that work best for them. But when the terms of the deal are hidden, competition doesn't work. And customers aren't the only ones who are hurt.

If we're going to talk about our businesses, we're going to have to talk about them within the constraints of the disclosure rules, without giving guidance, because we're not going to give guidance, because we don't believe that it is a sensible game to play.

As a whole, investors should welcome attempts to safeguard the integrity of markets. You need very clear rules applied to markets.

Most people might just as well buy a share of the whole market, which pools all the information, than delude themselves into thinking they know something the market doesn't.