When I was leaving Korea in 1961, I was asked by a retired American general, who was promoting Korean stocks, if I wanted to invest in the Korean Stock Market. I declined only because I knew that their market was not regulated and was not always kosher.

The whole world wants to invest in the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE), The NASDAQ and the American Stock Exchange. Why? Because they are orderly, well-run, aboveboard and trustworthy and because they are accountable to many regulatory bodies.

The American stock markets with their Security Exchange Commission, certified public accountants and vigilant lawyers seem to be the only real place to invest your money with a sense of security. Through the years and through all the scandals I have learned differently.

I have been involved in many Class Action suits against seemingly honest CEOs and company boards. They usually resolve themselves the same way. The lawyers on my side make a ton of money and I get a dollar and fifty cents. So much for watchdogs.

And then there is the famous term (of which I have no clue), "General Accepted Accounting principles." How could any CEO perform hanky-panky with those brilliant CPAs (in their green-visor caps and rolled up sleeves) using "General Accepted Accounting Principles" on their paperwork?

Welcome to the Enron Fiasco!

One of accounting's "Big Five," Arthur Anderson was the watchdog. The public felt secure. The employees at Enron felt secure. The NYSE felt secure. And then the "House of Playing Cards" tumbled with the first strong gust of wind.

In an Op-Ed article in The New York Times on Feb. 1, Harrison Goldin, a comptroller of New York City from 1974 to 1989, has a strong and seemingly reasonable answer to the problem: term limits.

"Like elected officials in NYC and elsewhere, auditors of publicly-held companies should be allowed to serve the same company for only a set number of years." After that specified period, the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) would order in a new company as the accountants. "The same accounting firm could return to audit a company after a suitable period of time had passed."

Mr. Goldin's last paragraph goes to the heart of the answer. "The cost of requiring the regular replacement of auditors may be high. And there is value in continuity, familiarity and efficiency. But the cost, as the Enron debacle dramatizes, is one the marketplace must bear to preserve - or recapture - the public confidence on which our free market depends."