"Corporates may not be well-received by these otherwise independent professions, but should this in itself preclude listings on public exchanges? "
I agree,
If a company has 10 shareholders , and is private, the same potential conflicts may arise as in a listed entity, with a 100,000 shareholders.
I see no real difference between the listed and private entities.
So to extend the arguments against investment from outside the professions , the only allowable structure should be a partnership ,with no investment by anyone other than the profession themselves?
In medicine, this logic would suggest that industries such as pathology and radiology would need to be organised in this way.
Back to hospitals, because they contain a group of professionals who are overwhelmingly employees in large corporate and state hospitals.
This being nurses.
Despite lots of pressures from managements, they are responsible for their own professional behaviour.
And such pressure is no excuse[although often a mitigating factor in any penalty], for unprofessional conduct.
The same goes for lawyers in large firms, corporate, listed or otherwise, or employees in partner controlled firms.
The only relevance that SGH's problems have that relate to its existence as a listed entity, are that listing enabled it to use its listed shares , more easily, as a currency for aquisition.
Being a legal firm, is neither here nor there , for that process.
cheers
Expand
