CEO's and top executives at companies are under constant, intense scrutiny, from financial markets and shareholders for their roles and the performance of their companies.

When they clock out, and go home to their personal lives, that was where the line was drawn and investors stopped putting CEO's under the microscope so much.

Not anymore.

With the recent, surprising resignation, of British Petroleum (BP) CEO John Browne over stories surfacing about his personal life and potentially damaging allegations that he misused company resources, we're putting the debate back front and center...where do you draw the line about what the investors and the public need to know about what happens in the private life of CEO's?

With such a shock announcement, the fine line between public and private life for executives was almost erased, leaving investors and the public scrambling to find some semblance and where to draw the line of what is relevant that investors should know about the private lives of very top executives.

Now, I do think there is some clarity that a lot of people would agree on on what is pertinent and relevant information that markets and investors would need, and want, to know about what happens out of the office.

CEO's and officials misusing company resources, would definitely fall under something that shareholders deserve to know, regardless if it happens in the private life of executives.

What I don't think is relevant to investors, or is any business of ours, is what these CEO's do in their personal lives or their life decisions they decide to make.

Gay, straight, bisexual, married, divorced, what race they are, nationality, problem child, religious or not and which religion they practice, all irrelevant to me as an investor, and none of my business to begin with.

All I am concerned about is how they perform as CEO, and if for some reasons stuff they were going through in their personal lives affects their performance as CEO.

In John Browne's case, him having a "boyfriend"...doesn't matter to me. The fact that he lied to a judge about how he met his former partner, and that he potentially misused company resources, is the information that is pertinent to shareholders and something that warrants placing his private life under the microscope, as this would also affect BP in some way, shape, and form.

I take you back to the Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky fiasco that gripped America in the 90's.

Sex in the oval office of the White House? Don't care.

President lying under oath about it, now that is something we should care about. Furthermore, to clear that up, THAT is also the reason why Bill Clinton got impeached, not because he was fooling around with an intern.

In John Browne's case, him lying to a judge and potentially misusing company resources are what will bring him scrutiny and trouble, not the fact that he had a boyfriend.

The line has to be drawn somewhere, and after this latest incident, we probably need to redraw where it is again.

-Curtis Bergh