The resignation of Ionel Oprea from the position of General Inspector of the Bucharest Stock Exchange did indeed occur on September 1st, 2006.

The date of April 7th, 2004, which is mistakenly mentioned in our article as the date of his resignation, is actually that of the listing of Rompetrol on the BSE, the beginning of the speculation which led to the arrest of three CNVM commissioners, and of several brokers, events which we suspected were somewhat connected to the resignation of Oprea, unhappy with the way his role as an overseer was designed ("There is no agreement between the institutions - the CNVM and the Bucharest Stock Exchange - on the subject of oversight", Mr. Oprea said for BURSA, at the moment of his resignation, as he had notified the suspicious nature of the trades involving Rompetrol shares, two years earlier).

I think that that is the only mistake of the article.

I do agree with the author of the article that the CNVM shirks its obligations when making decisions on the creation of the internal audit department of the Bucharest Stock Exchange, which is what the article is really about.

The distinction between the internal oversight of the Bucharest Stock Exchange and the oversight of the market is artificial, because the internal flaws of the Exchange can distort the market.

The supervision concept can not be divided, into on-line and "from within" supervision, as the law itself provides that the general inspector, has "free access to all the locations, all the documents, information and records of the market operator" (Law 297/2004, art. 135, line (3)/c).

Meaning that "distinctions of substance concerning the duties of the representative of the internal audit department and those of the inspector", as the CNVM says in its "Right of Reply", don't really exist, the only distinction being their distinct subordinatio