Auditors, lawyers and securities regulators have something of a mental block when it comes to these kinds of issues. The potential or risk of something turning out to be unethical does not seem to be a problem with these groups - they only seem to think something is worth investigating after an undesirable outcome has occurred. It is reasonable to conjecture that Wall would benefit financially if his low brand of politics succeeded in moving Alberta companies because he owns shares in those companies. The mere fact that he is trying something that might benefit him is cause for alarm whether or not it actually subsequently transpires. But instead the viewpoint taken by auditors, lawyers and regulators seems to be that waving a gun around is not a problem unless it goes off. Regulatory and auditing standards must be more proactive and consider intent and potential for malfeasance rather than just waiting for actual malfeasance to occur.